3 ms·
>It has nothing to do with "crisis in Western societies" Yes, which is why I said RICH countries, not western countries. It would have been strange for me to
by Turskarama 4y ago
>It has nothing to do with "crisis in Western societies"
Yes, which is why I said RICH countries, not western countries. It would have been strange for me to focus on western countries, given that this thread is about Japan.
>and because there are no social or economic forces coercing them to have kids.
This is kind of implying that the primary reason people have children is for economic reasons, but in wealthy countries children have been more of an economic burden than benefit and yet most people still choose to have children, though usually just 1 or 2.
In fact, this research (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-the-week-big-drop-in-birth-rate-may-be-levelling-off/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-th...) by the pew research center shows that within a single country (in this case the united states) birth rates are often inversely correlated with economic strength. It actually shows the birth rate increasing between 1940 and 1960, despite the fact that children were an economic burden that entire time.
I think the idea of higher income leading to lower birthrates only really applies to countries leaving deep poverty where it is common for children to work for an income. While women might not want to have 8 children, there are a lot of women who would like to have 3 or 4 children, enough to keep the birth rate at or above parity. Among that population, many won't have as many children as they want because they can't afford either the time or the cost of raising them.
- anovikov 4y agoWell, if you take the world overall, birth rates are beyond doubt falling (and are now at or near replacement ratio), while wealth is beyond doubt improving fast and has been for several generations virtually nonstop (even major events like Great Depression or WWII did not stop economic growth for the world overall due to being largely regional).
- Turskarama 4y agoYou should look into Simpson's paradox. The fall in birthrates is caused by countries going from undeveloped to developed, but within developed countries the birthrate is higher when the economy is stronger.
- defrost 4y ago> within developed countries the birthrate is higher when the economy is stronger. So ... you're implying that the USofA saw peak economic strength in 1825 and it's been down hill ever since? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1037156/crude-birth-rate-us-1800-2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1037156/crude-birth-rate...
- Turskarama 4y agoNo, I would say that the USA was still a developing country in 1825, and switched to a developed country after that point.
- defrost 4y agoAt which point did it become a developed country then? With respect to both the data above and cherry picking to best fit a specious argument, of course.
- Turskarama 4y agoIt's a very fuzzy line isn't it? There are quite a few axes you could measure to decide what is developed vs undeveloped, and even the richest countries of the early 20th century would look undeveloped in the modern world. But in the context of birth rates, I would say the three factors that matter the most is the infant mortality rate, the state of retirement, and the existence of child labour laws. High infant mortality increases birth rates because parents have more "backup" children in case some die. A good retirement system reduces the number of children because people are less likely to have children just to look after them in old age, and child labour laws reduce birth rates because it turns children from an economic benefit to an economic burden. Alternatively you could consider a country "more developed" if it has better support for parents through parental leave and baby bonuses. So ultimately more developed = less children is a bit of a simplification, but I think it's _less_ of a simplification than more money = less children which is what I was arguing against.
- anovikov 4y ago