5 ms·

You should look into Simpson's paradox. The fall in birthrates is caused by countries going from undeveloped to developed, but within developed countries the b

You 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 ago
  No, I would say that the USA was still a developing country in 1825, and switched to a developed country after that point.
  - defrost 4y ago
    At 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 ago
      It'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
That is known to exist indeed, countries in which most people can simply live off social money, like Sweden, have better birth rates. But, all of those countries are below replacement level anyway... There is no way for a rich country to be above replacement level this days. Their success varies, but it all seems like that being rich is incompatible with having kids. Even in single countries, for which statistics like that is available, birth rates are higher in poorer income groups, like it is in USA. Households making over $200K have 1.5x fewer kids than the poorest households. Both between countries, and within countries, main drivers of reproduction are poverty and low educational attainment.
- slaw 4y ago
  Sweden gets better birth rate thanks to immigrants not thanks to Swedes. The same in Germany.

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 ago
No, I would say that the USA was still a developing country in 1825, and switched to a developed country after that point.
- defrost 4y ago
  At 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 ago
    It'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

That is known to exist indeed, countries in which most people can simply live off social money, like Sweden, have better birth rates. But, all of those countries are below replacement level anyway... There is no way for a rich country to be above replacement level this days. Their success varies, but it all seems like that being rich is incompatible with having kids. Even in single countries, for which statistics like that is available, birth rates are higher in poorer income groups, like it is in USA. Households making over $200K have 1.5x fewer kids than the poorest households. Both between countries, and within countries, main drivers of reproduction are poverty and low educational attainment.

slaw 4y ago
Sweden gets better birth rate thanks to immigrants not thanks to Swedes. The same in Germany.