3 ms·

As is tradition, the comments' section on that website is better than the article itself. Personally, my take on the birthrate is that it's a multi-factor, cul

As is tradition, the comments' section on that website is better than the article itself. Personally, my take on the birthrate is that it's a multi-factor, cultural problem. It is not unique to the United States (and Canada). In fact, Canada has an even lower birthrate! At the root, though? Its that our society does not value kids as much as it used to and that a dying a community life means it is much harder to raise kids. This would be my #1 guess.

bediger4000 5y ago
> As is tradition, the comments' section on that website is better than the article itself. I read some of the comments based on your recommendation. I believe you were well-intentioned, but I will not repeat that mistake. The comments seem like a lot of economists' supply-demand curve easy, all-purpose answer to everything. The pull-quote in Cowen's blog-post has some comically flawed grammar: > One possible explanation for the increase in North Dakota birth rates is the fracking boom that occurred in this state over those years, which has been shown in other research to increase the birth rate (Kearney and Wilson 2018). Wait, fracking booms increase birth rate, or does fracking increase birth rate or does North Dakota increase birth rate?
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I went and looked up the citation in the post. It's interesting: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23408/w23408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23408/w234... The thesis of the paper is that fracking increases the incomes of less-educated men, which increases both the marital and non-marital birth rate, but not the marriage rate. They also contrasted with the Appalachian coal boom of the 70s and 80s, which increased marital birth rate and marriage rate but not non-marital birth rate. There's a wide body of research behind that paper linking economic conditions with birth rates, including studies in rodents about early-pregnancy abortions (in most mammals, the mother's body will spontaneously abort a fetus if food & survival conditions are poor); research into sex ratios (more boys than girls are born in times of plenty, while the reverse is true in times of starvation, consistent with males' greater variance of reproductive success); the "hem line hypothesis" (women wear more revealing clothing in boom times, and then more modest clothing in depression); and falling frequency of sex across all age groups and marital statuses in poor economic times. My takeaway is that humans and other mammals are biologically programmed to want to reproduce more when times are good but lose interest and focus on survival when times are bad, but the particular expression of this is culturally mediated and depends a lot on local social mores.
- ameminator 5y ago
  Sorry you didn't like it - I just found more content in the comments (and citations) than the actual post itself.

bediger4000 5y ago

> As is tradition, the comments' section on that website is better than the article itself. I read some of the comments based on your recommendation. I believe you were well-intentioned, but I will not repeat that mistake. The comments seem like a lot of economists' supply-demand curve easy, all-purpose answer to everything. The pull-quote in Cowen's blog-post has some comically flawed grammar: > One possible explanation for the increase in North Dakota birth rates is the fracking boom that occurred in this state over those years, which has been shown in other research to increase the birth rate (Kearney and Wilson 2018). Wait, fracking booms increase birth rate, or does fracking increase birth rate or does North Dakota increase birth rate?

nostrademons 5y ago
I went and looked up the citation in the post. It's interesting: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23408/w23408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23408/w234... The thesis of the paper is that fracking increases the incomes of less-educated men, which increases both the marital and non-marital birth rate, but not the marriage rate. They also contrasted with the Appalachian coal boom of the 70s and 80s, which increased marital birth rate and marriage rate but not non-marital birth rate. There's a wide body of research behind that paper linking economic conditions with birth rates, including studies in rodents about early-pregnancy abortions (in most mammals, the mother's body will spontaneously abort a fetus if food & survival conditions are poor); research into sex ratios (more boys than girls are born in times of plenty, while the reverse is true in times of starvation, consistent with males' greater variance of reproductive success); the "hem line hypothesis" (women wear more revealing clothing in boom times, and then more modest clothing in depression); and falling frequency of sex across all age groups and marital statuses in poor economic times. My takeaway is that humans and other mammals are biologically programmed to want to reproduce more when times are good but lose interest and focus on survival when times are bad, but the particular expression of this is culturally mediated and depends a lot on local social mores.
ameminator 5y ago
Sorry you didn't like it - I just found more content in the comments (and citations) than the actual post itself.