4 ms·

I wonder if we understand our low birth rates. What if a significant factor is, that after WW2, we all insist both parents work outside fulltime jobs? I feel hu

I wonder if we understand our low birth rates. What if a significant factor is, that after WW2, we all insist both parents work outside fulltime jobs? I feel humanity is like the guy teaching his horse not to eat.

mjfl 4y ago
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  It's like we forget the pre-WII poverty and long work hours plaguing pre-world war industrial society.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Most concerns about poverty on the internet have little to do with history or concern themselves with becoming well informed about economics beforehand.
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack.
shrimp_emoji 4y ago
I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing. Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most (for lack of alternatives provided by higher education). They also abort pregnancies a lot, though.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  If you have nothing else to do, your TV and Netflix are cut off, at least you still have a bed and each other. Makes sense to me.
  - vasco 4y ago
    A common joke in my country when seeing a family with more than 3 or 4 kids was "they must not have a TV at home".
- rapsey 4y ago
  > I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing. Strong disagree. People are quite hard wired to have kids. > Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most Poor people also very not much in control of their lives, practically no health care and poor access to affordable birth control. Partnering up quick gives poor young women at least a dual income household.
  - klipt 4y ago
    > People are quite hard wired to have kids. We're definitely hard wired to have sex, which used to be the same thing, but now there's birth control. Maybe evolution needs a little more time to dial up our cultural or genetic aversion to birth control...
    - samus 4y ago
      We definitively have subcultures that are violently opposed to birth control.
    - rapsey 4y ago
      After a certain age for most there is definitely a desire.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        The declining birth rates seem to indicate that the desire is not very strong for a lot of people.
        antisthenes 4y ago
        I'll give you a little hint: 50% of people can't have children on their own.
        adrianN 4y ago
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  Actually, the top dogs in a society also have a lot of kids. It's the middle and upper middle classes where the birth rates are killed - in the sweet spot where you have enough money to live comfortably childless but not enough money to outsource the extra labor for kids to others.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    - ReptileMan 4y ago
      I think it was our own paulg that made observation how many kids the rich families in the UK countryside have. And those marriages are generally speaking stable. In response to Matt Yglessias -https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1538234746416812033 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1538234746416812033 >I hadn't noticed this trend in Silicon Valley (where people put off having kids for the sake of their careers), but it's very visible in England, especially in the country. Lots of Range Rovers containing four blond children.
      - leoedin 4y ago
        This is something I've observed - the only people I've known with 3 or more kids are either beneficiaries of significant inherited wealth, or living in government housing with very low family income. I can see why. The cost of having kids is so incredibly high - both in direct terms (cost of childcare, stuff, food) and indirect (need a bigger house to maintain the same level of comfort, need to step back from your career for a few years). For someone on a very low income, the additional government support per child is meaningful. But for mid-high earners, the additional costs of that kid come directly out of your lifestyle.
nashashmi 4y ago
The battle between capitalism and communism and socialism led us to this point to flip the order of the entire world towards production either motivated by greed or by materialistic philosophy. This repurposed human beings towards factory like production machines. Now we have a world with social and capitalistic services for those who are unmarried and in their prime times. That is what we sell on billboards and on tv. Old people with family life and a minivan is not the life we talk about anymore.
Aunche 4y ago
Homemaking used to be a full time job prior to WWII. For example, women were expected to sew and wash clothes by hand.
DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
Probably will get slammed for this but the traditional idea of one spouse working to provide money to live and the other maintaining the home and bears primary responsibility for the kids seems like the most efficient and effective family foundation. I’ve never understood the idea that both parents should be able to work full time AND raise a family. They’re fundamentally at odds with each other.
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  I agree with your first sentence, but starting with "Probably will get slammed for this" always hamstrings the rest of the post. It sounds superior, like you're painting yourself as the underdog fighting for truth. In fact, you might be surprised by how many people agree with your first sentence, taken literally. One thing I think is generally misunderstood about this is that the result of the revolution wasn't, "all women should work" (this is usually an uncharitable characterisation made in anger), it was "women should be allowed to work without being shamed". However, there was of course no mirror movement, where men wanted to leave the working world. So, over decades, this naturally caused the market to shift, making life financially harder and harder for those families with only one worker. That's what caused women to have to work. It wasn't an idea.

mjfl 4y ago

soulofmischief 4y ago
It's like we forget the pre-WII poverty and long work hours plaguing pre-world war industrial society.
- dmix 4y ago
  Most concerns about poverty on the internet have little to do with history or concern themselves with becoming well informed about economics beforehand.
dang 4y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack.

shrimp_emoji 4y ago

I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing. Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most (for lack of alternatives provided by higher education). They also abort pregnancies a lot, though.

Aeolun 4y ago
If you have nothing else to do, your TV and Netflix are cut off, at least you still have a bed and each other. Makes sense to me.
- vasco 4y ago
  A common joke in my country when seeing a family with more than 3 or 4 kids was "they must not have a TV at home".
rapsey 4y ago
> I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing. Strong disagree. People are quite hard wired to have kids. > Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most Poor people also very not much in control of their lives, practically no health care and poor access to affordable birth control. Partnering up quick gives poor young women at least a dual income household.
- klipt 4y ago
  > People are quite hard wired to have kids. We're definitely hard wired to have sex, which used to be the same thing, but now there's birth control. Maybe evolution needs a little more time to dial up our cultural or genetic aversion to birth control...
  - samus 4y ago
    We definitively have subcultures that are violently opposed to birth control.
  - rapsey 4y ago
    After a certain age for most there is definitely a desire.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      The declining birth rates seem to indicate that the desire is not very strong for a lot of people.
      - antisthenes 4y ago
        I'll give you a little hint: 50% of people can't have children on their own.
        adrianN 4y ago
ReptileMan 4y ago
Actually, the top dogs in a society also have a lot of kids. It's the middle and upper middle classes where the birth rates are killed - in the sweet spot where you have enough money to live comfortably childless but not enough money to outsource the extra labor for kids to others.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    I think it was our own paulg that made observation how many kids the rich families in the UK countryside have. And those marriages are generally speaking stable. In response to Matt Yglessias -https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1538234746416812033 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1538234746416812033 >I hadn't noticed this trend in Silicon Valley (where people put off having kids for the sake of their careers), but it's very visible in England, especially in the country. Lots of Range Rovers containing four blond children.
    - leoedin 4y ago
      This is something I've observed - the only people I've known with 3 or more kids are either beneficiaries of significant inherited wealth, or living in government housing with very low family income. I can see why. The cost of having kids is so incredibly high - both in direct terms (cost of childcare, stuff, food) and indirect (need a bigger house to maintain the same level of comfort, need to step back from your career for a few years). For someone on a very low income, the additional government support per child is meaningful. But for mid-high earners, the additional costs of that kid come directly out of your lifestyle.

nashashmi 4y ago

The battle between capitalism and communism and socialism led us to this point to flip the order of the entire world towards production either motivated by greed or by materialistic philosophy. This repurposed human beings towards factory like production machines. Now we have a world with social and capitalistic services for those who are unmarried and in their prime times. That is what we sell on billboards and on tv. Old people with family life and a minivan is not the life we talk about anymore.

Aunche 4y ago

Homemaking used to be a full time job prior to WWII. For example, women were expected to sew and wash clothes by hand.

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago

Probably will get slammed for this but the traditional idea of one spouse working to provide money to live and the other maintaining the home and bears primary responsibility for the kids seems like the most efficient and effective family foundation. I’ve never understood the idea that both parents should be able to work full time AND raise a family. They’re fundamentally at odds with each other.

happytoexplain 4y ago
I agree with your first sentence, but starting with "Probably will get slammed for this" always hamstrings the rest of the post. It sounds superior, like you're painting yourself as the underdog fighting for truth. In fact, you might be surprised by how many people agree with your first sentence, taken literally. One thing I think is generally misunderstood about this is that the result of the revolution wasn't, "all women should work" (this is usually an uncharitable characterisation made in anger), it was "women should be allowed to work without being shamed". However, there was of course no mirror movement, where men wanted to leave the working world. So, over decades, this naturally caused the market to shift, making life financially harder and harder for those families with only one worker. That's what caused women to have to work. It wasn't an idea.