6 ms·

Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan? To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You ha

by toxik 4y ago

Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan? To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You have made an absurd claim and backed it up with a weak argument.

lmm 4y ago
> Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan? Once you adjust for immigration, they do.
- brabel 4y ago
  Even with plenty of incentives for families to have children, this is correct. Practically, all of the population growth Sweden has been experiencing in the last decades is due to immigration and immigrants having kids after moving to Sweden. > Idag föds i snitt 1,88 barn per vuxen kvinna. Det betyder att Sveriges befolkning skulle minska utan invandring. (Today, an adult woman has on average 1.88 children. This means the population would decrease if not for immigration) > Idag (2023) har Sverige 10,5 miljoner invånare ... År 1950 var bara en procent av den svenska befolkningen född utomlands. 1980 hade andelen ökat till drygt sju procent. 2020 var nästan 20 procent av Sveriges befolkning födda utomlands (Today, Sweden has 10.5 million inhabitants... in 1950, only one percent of the population was born overseas. In 1980, the amount had grown to 7%. In 2020, almost 20% of the population was born overseas). > Sedan 1980-talet har mer än två miljoner människor fått tillstånd att bo i Sverige, kortare tid eller permanent. (Since the 1980's, more than 2 million people have received permission to live in Sweden, including short-term and permanently. A lot of people think that Sweden is still an homogenous country, ethnically, like Japan, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I am not mistaken, Sweden is, today, about as "mixed race" (for lack of a better word) as countries like the USA and Australia. Source: https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individers-och-gruppers-identitet-och-relationer/sveriges-befolkning-migration-och-integration# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individe...
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    And for an even better example, look at neighboring Finland. Finland famously gives tons of support for new moms, and their society is quite egalitarian. And their fertility rates have absolutely crashed to right around Japan's levels.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Beaver117 4y ago
Tell me how women's rights could possibly not effect birth rates? It's a major factor. Also, Japan is nowhere near as expensive as other countries but they are declining the same rate or faster.
- quartesixte 4y ago
  Japan had a near-apocalyptic financial disaster that to this day they haven’t really recovered from. Could have seriously affected the population’s psyche and stance towards things.
  - Mindless2112 4y ago
    Number of births in Japan has been falling since 1973 [1]. [1] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/
- mxkopy 4y ago
  You contradict yourself. Japan is widely known to be behind on gender equality, much more so than the U.S., and you point out that birth rates are declining faster there. Which means if anything that women's rights increases birth rates. The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. So far the flawed (i.e. batshit insane) reasoning of "women are forced to marry less" doesn't hold.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. This is an odd challenge. The relationship between women's education levels and lower fertility rates is a famously strong correlation in the social sciences. There are tons and tons of studies that show that as women's education levels and status rise, fertility levels subsequently drop. Here is a page that links to a bunch of studies, https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertility-rates/ https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertili... . But seriously, just Google "women's education levels fertility rates" and you'll find tons and tons of studies.
refurb 4y ago
You took offense? Why? When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else). Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  Believe it or not, women don't have to be forced into having kids. That you view this as important to birth rates is messed up TBH
  - refurb 4y ago
    I have no idea what you mean by forced. If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago. Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. Why does that offend you?
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      > Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry. Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more? Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Huh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility” to have kids or not, its a choice. Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop. When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids. You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.

by toxik 4y ago

lmm 4y ago

> Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan? Once you adjust for immigration, they do.

brabel 4y ago
Even with plenty of incentives for families to have children, this is correct. Practically, all of the population growth Sweden has been experiencing in the last decades is due to immigration and immigrants having kids after moving to Sweden. > Idag föds i snitt 1,88 barn per vuxen kvinna. Det betyder att Sveriges befolkning skulle minska utan invandring. (Today, an adult woman has on average 1.88 children. This means the population would decrease if not for immigration) > Idag (2023) har Sverige 10,5 miljoner invånare ... År 1950 var bara en procent av den svenska befolkningen född utomlands. 1980 hade andelen ökat till drygt sju procent. 2020 var nästan 20 procent av Sveriges befolkning födda utomlands (Today, Sweden has 10.5 million inhabitants... in 1950, only one percent of the population was born overseas. In 1980, the amount had grown to 7%. In 2020, almost 20% of the population was born overseas). > Sedan 1980-talet har mer än två miljoner människor fått tillstånd att bo i Sverige, kortare tid eller permanent. (Since the 1980's, more than 2 million people have received permission to live in Sweden, including short-term and permanently. A lot of people think that Sweden is still an homogenous country, ethnically, like Japan, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I am not mistaken, Sweden is, today, about as "mixed race" (for lack of a better word) as countries like the USA and Australia. Source: https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individers-och-gruppers-identitet-och-relationer/sveriges-befolkning-migration-och-integration# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individe...
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  And for an even better example, look at neighboring Finland. Finland famously gives tons of support for new moms, and their society is quite egalitarian. And their fertility rates have absolutely crashed to right around Japan's levels.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Beaver117 4y ago

Tell me how women's rights could possibly not effect birth rates? It's a major factor. Also, Japan is nowhere near as expensive as other countries but they are declining the same rate or faster.

quartesixte 4y ago
Japan had a near-apocalyptic financial disaster that to this day they haven’t really recovered from. Could have seriously affected the population’s psyche and stance towards things.
- Mindless2112 4y ago
  Number of births in Japan has been falling since 1973 [1]. [1] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/
mxkopy 4y ago
You contradict yourself. Japan is widely known to be behind on gender equality, much more so than the U.S., and you point out that birth rates are declining faster there. Which means if anything that women's rights increases birth rates. The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. So far the flawed (i.e. batshit insane) reasoning of "women are forced to marry less" doesn't hold.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. This is an odd challenge. The relationship between women's education levels and lower fertility rates is a famously strong correlation in the social sciences. There are tons and tons of studies that show that as women's education levels and status rise, fertility levels subsequently drop. Here is a page that links to a bunch of studies, https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertility-rates/ https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertili... . But seriously, just Google "women's education levels fertility rates" and you'll find tons and tons of studies.

refurb 4y ago

You took offense? Why? When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else). Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.

mxkopy 4y ago
Believe it or not, women don't have to be forced into having kids. That you view this as important to birth rates is messed up TBH
- refurb 4y ago
  I have no idea what you mean by forced. If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago. Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. Why does that offend you?
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    > Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry. Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more? Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Huh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility” to have kids or not, its a choice. Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop. When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids. You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.