3 ms·

To me this doesn't mean much demographically without information on what proportion of that 40% were ever married at any point, and whether they reproduced in t

by lainga 5y ago

To me this doesn't mean much demographically without information on what proportion of that 40% were ever married at any point, and whether they reproduced in that time. Otherwise you could just get a nation of single parents who split shortly after having children (leaving aside what we know about actual TFR rates in the West).

rsj_hn 5y ago
Yes, hypothetically you can have a society in which people marry, have kids, raise the kids, and then split. But that's not what's happening across the Western democracies. Look, this issue of social reproduction is the biggest threat to liberal democracy, and it goes a long way back. In France, the same areas in which the most copies of Diderot's Encyclopédie were bought were the ones that started seeing both marriage and fertility declines. As the society as a whole proceeded to liberalize you started seeing population declines across the board. I would add that things like child support benefits and other forms of social insurance -- the routine answer to all social ills in the West -- have not shown any efficacy in addressing this. It's not a welfare problem. Hungary has tried to give lots of money to increase fertility. Romania tried authoritarian techniques to increase fertility (fertility was a chronic problem in Eastern-bloc nations). None of that worked. If you really believe that modern liberal societies are a viable concern, then you have to solve the problem of more and more people dying alone, having never married, and having no children. You have to solve the problem of people living isolated lives and not being integrated into tight family networks. Because over the long run, these defects will prove fatal.
- jdhn 5y ago
  >Look, this issue of social reproduction is the biggest threat to liberal democracy, This is absolute alarmist nonsense. If you believe this, do you think that Europe is further down the path of moving away from liberal democracy than the US is thanks to the US having a larger birth rate?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Yes.
- ozborn 5y ago
  I agree with the gist of what you write, but I think your text below (although correct) is misleading. "But that's not what's happening across the Western democracies." Western democracies do indeed have poor social reproduction, but I do NOT believe "Western" or democracy is the driving factor. If anything, your statement understates the issue because below replacement fertility rates are rapidly expanding and by no means restricted to the West or to democracies. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... There are ~ 90 countries where fertility is below replacement including disparate non-Western countries like UAE, China, South Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, Lebanon, etc... including those that are not democratic.

by lainga 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

Yes, hypothetically you can have a society in which people marry, have kids, raise the kids, and then split. But that's not what's happening across the Western democracies. Look, this issue of social reproduction is the biggest threat to liberal democracy, and it goes a long way back. In France, the same areas in which the most copies of Diderot's Encyclopédie were bought were the ones that started seeing both marriage and fertility declines. As the society as a whole proceeded to liberalize you started seeing population declines across the board. I would add that things like child support benefits and other forms of social insurance -- the routine answer to all social ills in the West -- have not shown any efficacy in addressing this. It's not a welfare problem. Hungary has tried to give lots of money to increase fertility. Romania tried authoritarian techniques to increase fertility (fertility was a chronic problem in Eastern-bloc nations). None of that worked. If you really believe that modern liberal societies are a viable concern, then you have to solve the problem of more and more people dying alone, having never married, and having no children. You have to solve the problem of people living isolated lives and not being integrated into tight family networks. Because over the long run, these defects will prove fatal.

jdhn 5y ago
>Look, this issue of social reproduction is the biggest threat to liberal democracy, This is absolute alarmist nonsense. If you believe this, do you think that Europe is further down the path of moving away from liberal democracy than the US is thanks to the US having a larger birth rate?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Yes.
ozborn 5y ago
I agree with the gist of what you write, but I think your text below (although correct) is misleading. "But that's not what's happening across the Western democracies." Western democracies do indeed have poor social reproduction, but I do NOT believe "Western" or democracy is the driving factor. If anything, your statement understates the issue because below replacement fertility rates are rapidly expanding and by no means restricted to the West or to democracies. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... There are ~ 90 countries where fertility is below replacement including disparate non-Western countries like UAE, China, South Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, Lebanon, etc... including those that are not democratic.