3 ms·

In the US (and probably the rest of the world) number of children per household is inversely correlated with income[1]. Every time a discussion of birthdates co

In the US (and probably the rest of the world) number of children per household is inversely correlated with income[1]. Every time a discussion of birthdates comes up people claim it’s too expensive to have children, but the actual evidence suggests that isn’t a factor. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

medvezhenok 4y ago
It's the opportunity cost (how much income are you giving up by having kids), not the absolute income. Also, people at lower incomes have subsidies, so cost of children can be different. For example - in VT, if your income < 150% FPL (federal poverty level), you pay $0 towards child care (versus some people paying > $2000/month in places like NY) https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/Benefits/CCFAP-Income-Guidelines-Effective-2.26.2023.pdf https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/Bene... If you calculate opportunity cost, the cost of a child increases dramatically as you go up the income ladder. From tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds (in income missed) or even millions (if you take time off + pay for your kid's schooling in private academies)
Agingcoder 4y ago
Inverse correlation in the US doesn't necessarily mean it's not a factor. You could say for example, that less educated people and therefore statistically poorer have more children because less access to contraception/abortion, and richer people want to be sure they can afford to send their kids to university (all of this needs to be backed by actual figures, I'm just making random claims) so will have fewer kids. I'd say you need a different kind of measure to say this, at least by comparing people within the same social and economic strata.

3 ms·

In the US (and probably the rest of the world) number of children per household is inversely correlated with income[1]. Every time a discussion of birthdates co

by kasey_junk 4y ago

medvezhenok 4y ago
It's the opportunity cost (how much income are you giving up by having kids), not the absolute income. Also, people at lower incomes have subsidies, so cost of children can be different. For example - in VT, if your income < 150% FPL (federal poverty level), you pay $0 towards child care (versus some people paying > $2000/month in places like NY) https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/Benefits/CCFAP-Income-Guidelines-Effective-2.26.2023.pdf https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/Bene... If you calculate opportunity cost, the cost of a child increases dramatically as you go up the income ladder. From tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds (in income missed) or even millions (if you take time off + pay for your kid's schooling in private academies)
Agingcoder 4y ago
Inverse correlation in the US doesn't necessarily mean it's not a factor. You could say for example, that less educated people and therefore statistically poorer have more children because less access to contraception/abortion, and richer people want to be sure they can afford to send their kids to university (all of this needs to be backed by actual figures, I'm just making random claims) so will have fewer kids. I'd say you need a different kind of measure to say this, at least by comparing people within the same social and economic strata.