5 ms·

It’s worth pointing out that in a lot of countries, there’s also an inverse relationship between household income and fertility rate. Often those positioned to

It’s worth pointing out that in a lot of countries, there’s also an inverse relationship between household income and fertility rate. Often those positioned to afford more kids choose not too. Similarly, even countries with extremely generous maternal benefits don’t see significant boosts in their fertility. > A lot of this has to do with issues like zoning and building codes as well. The general trend of richer countries having fewer babies holds even in countries with wildly different zoning laws and expectations around living conditions. Japan’s fertility rate fell below replacement a long time ago, and even countries like India and Mexico are now at or below replacement levels. For any given material explanation one can point to, there are clear counterexamples of countries without that material problem which still has a low fertility rate.

blagie 5y ago
I'm not so sure. I think it's a mistake to look at this on a country-wide basis: - The cost-of-living in India in Bangalore or Mumbai -- at a standard to afford a family -- is astronomical for relatively educated individuals making $10k/year. That's where affluent people live. It's not until you get into the real elites making $100k/year that it's easy again. That's the same worldwide. Even very poor countries have areas where these dynamics kick in. - Where many poor people live, for example, on rural farms, it's possible to have lots of kids. "Generous maternal benefits" don't come anywhere close to filling this gap.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > "Generous maternal benefits" don't come anywhere close to filling this gap. You would expect some effect though, yet Northern Europe and Japan continue to have extremely low birth rates despite the efforts of their governments. Also, many European countries saw fertility rates drop a long time ago, often back when housing was much, much cheaper. IIRC countries like Sweden and Norway dropped below replacement levels in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
  - blagie 5y ago
    I don't know Sweden and Norway well enough to comment. From my experience in other parts of Europe, the situation was more complex. In countries I've been in, that period coincided with a move from farms, where land was ample, to cities, which were cramped. Big family housing wasn't really available; those cities had apartments which simply didn't really support larger families. Cost wasn't so much an issue for having a cramped 2 or 3 bedroom in the sixties, but beyond that, you moved into ultra-wealthy territory. So I guess my question is whether you could write a little bit more about the Scandinavian countries. That's my own ignorance speaking. Japanese cities are super-cramped. I would not want a big family in Tokyo.

blagie 5y ago

I'm not so sure. I think it's a mistake to look at this on a country-wide basis: - The cost-of-living in India in Bangalore or Mumbai -- at a standard to afford a family -- is astronomical for relatively educated individuals making $10k/year. That's where affluent people live. It's not until you get into the real elites making $100k/year that it's easy again. That's the same worldwide. Even very poor countries have areas where these dynamics kick in. - Where many poor people live, for example, on rural farms, it's possible to have lots of kids. "Generous maternal benefits" don't come anywhere close to filling this gap.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> "Generous maternal benefits" don't come anywhere close to filling this gap. You would expect some effect though, yet Northern Europe and Japan continue to have extremely low birth rates despite the efforts of their governments. Also, many European countries saw fertility rates drop a long time ago, often back when housing was much, much cheaper. IIRC countries like Sweden and Norway dropped below replacement levels in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
- blagie 5y ago
  I don't know Sweden and Norway well enough to comment. From my experience in other parts of Europe, the situation was more complex. In countries I've been in, that period coincided with a move from farms, where land was ample, to cities, which were cramped. Big family housing wasn't really available; those cities had apartments which simply didn't really support larger families. Cost wasn't so much an issue for having a cramped 2 or 3 bedroom in the sixties, but beyond that, you moved into ultra-wealthy territory. So I guess my question is whether you could write a little bit more about the Scandinavian countries. That's my own ignorance speaking. Japanese cities are super-cramped. I would not want a big family in Tokyo.