4 ms·
Actually, there is an inverse relationship between prosperity and child-bearing.
by subpixel 6y ago
Actually, there is an inverse relationship between prosperity and child-bearing.
- jeffbee 6y agoOnly if you make improper global comparisons. Within comparable American populations, wealth is positively associated with fertility. "Examining data from 1985 to 2007, Lovenheim and Mumford use short-run home price variation over time within cities as their shock to family wealth. They find that a $100,000 increase in the value of one’s home results in a 16% increase in the probability of having a child." https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00266 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_0026...
- sokoloff 6y agoSo, among the slice of the population wealthy enough to own a home and have a difference of +$100K in equity vs a control group, there's a modest positive correlation of having at least one child. That's not entirely rejecting that across Americans the curve could rise at the lower end of "prosperity" as well. Which, according to this study, it does and average number of children decreases almost perfectly steadily with increasing decile of lifetime earnings (see Table 2): https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealth.pdf https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealt...
- subpixel 6y agoHere’s the data that shows the inverse relationship between wealth and child-bearing, in the US, circa 2017: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam... What happens when homeowners (a subset of Americans) come into an extra $100k is tangential.