3 ms·
>The broader issue is that the US birth rate is 1.77 births per woman -- and falling, which is below the replacement rate. Have you considered that the causati
by dropit_sphere 6y ago
>The broader issue is that the US birth rate is 1.77 births per woman -- and falling, which is below the replacement rate.
Have you considered that the causation may be in the reverse?
The article pokes fun at skeptics of women in the workforce in the 60's and 70's. Yet real wages have remained stagnant since then, and given that divorce rates are significantly higher when the woman is the higher earner, it's not insane to suggest that falling (who am I kidding, fallen) family formation rates are due to those couples now having trouble forming in the first place.
Elizabeth Warren's Two-Income Trap is required reading here.