5 ms·

Consider Victorian era Britain, when the average person is much poorer, the air is heavily polluted with coal use, and the medical care is almost non-existant b

by dbgev 3y ago

Consider Victorian era Britain, when the average person is much poorer, the air is heavily polluted with coal use, and the medical care is almost non-existant by modern standards. Fertility rate is about 5-6. Then it dropped to around 3 over 100 years and has been on a steady downward trajectory ever since. This pattern is broadly replicated everywhere that industrializes. Whatever the cause, it's not due to wealth per capita or personal health. It's probably cultural. Contraceptives / family planning definitely plays a big part too.

echelon 3y ago
100% I think this popular narrative of "kids are too expensive" is mostly a media fiction. It's more about individual comfort. Money can be a factor in comfort, but it's hardly the only one. Poorer immigrants tend to have many children. Even today, poorer people in general have more kids than wealthy folks. Just look at the data - it contradicts the headlines. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, kids were free labor for the farm and made life easier. In today's world, they're expensive furniture for your condo or apartment and they break things. People are focused on their own lives and careers and aren't ready to take a back seat and turn attention to children. They're main characters. I think a lot of folks feel that having children turns you into an NPC. Poor people aren't climbing the corporate ladder. They don't need to worry about keeping their calendars clear for meetings. They're not filling their Instagram with travel photos. Middle income folks have access to social media and easy dopamine hits. They want to stretch being single or unmarried or not having kids out longer and enjoy it more. It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children. Yes, people want to party and be free and not have to be tied down and spend money on raising kids. Having kids is a pretty fulfilling experience though. It's not something I understood until I had some. The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them.
  - tasuki 3y ago
    > The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them. I often hear this, but it sounds like nonsense? Why obsess about what happens when you're old and infirm? It's going to suck regardless. One of my great aunts had no kids. She had a great life and lived to 95. As for avoiding struggling, I have a small kid and struggle. If you want to avoid struggle, having kids is a terrible idea.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Your aunt’s quality of life probably depended on the labor supplied by a large working age population. Assuming the pace of automation cannot keep up with proportion of working age population declines (i.e. total supply of labor), then it makes sense to predict higher competition for labor, via higher labor AND higher taxes/lower benefits and the political fight for those.
      - tasuki 3y ago
        Yes of course. I was not talking society-scale but individual-scale.
- volkl48 3y ago
  I don't think the data supports your hypothesis, at least if we're talking recent declines in rich countries from their prior levels and not trying to answer "why does the US have a lower birth rate than Mauritania". Birth rate declines in the US in the past 15-20 years have been entirely among the poor. Among the higher-income they've been basically stable. Here's a simple chart: https://www.statista.com/statistics/562541/birth-rate-by-poverty-status-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/562541/birth-rate-by-pov... From 2005-2021, the change in birth rates by group: Below poverty level - down 25% Income 100-199% of poverty level - down 15% Income 200%+ of poverty level - up 2%.
dbgev 3y ago
Throwing money at the problem (e.g. subsidizing healthcare, maternity leave, etc) probably doesn't help. Look at e.g. Australia and other rich western nations. Per capita health care spending is very high. Per capita wealth is very high. Amount of government money spent on various family support programmes is extremely high. Fertility is still low. Lower than poorer nations, in fact. Partly I think it's because teenagers / young adults are heavily discouraged from pregnancy. Maybe we should as a society push people to marry early, e.g. soon as they finish high school / during uni.
hollerith 3y ago
On a farm, children contribute to economic production; in a city, they are just expensive furniture.

by dbgev 3y ago

echelon 3y ago

100% I think this popular narrative of "kids are too expensive" is mostly a media fiction. It's more about individual comfort. Money can be a factor in comfort, but it's hardly the only one. Poorer immigrants tend to have many children. Even today, poorer people in general have more kids than wealthy folks. Just look at the data - it contradicts the headlines. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, kids were free labor for the farm and made life easier. In today's world, they're expensive furniture for your condo or apartment and they break things. People are focused on their own lives and careers and aren't ready to take a back seat and turn attention to children. They're main characters. I think a lot of folks feel that having children turns you into an NPC. Poor people aren't climbing the corporate ladder. They don't need to worry about keeping their calendars clear for meetings. They're not filling their Instagram with travel photos. Middle income folks have access to social media and easy dopamine hits. They want to stretch being single or unmarried or not having kids out longer and enjoy it more. It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children.

Clubber 3y ago
>It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children. Yes, people want to party and be free and not have to be tied down and spend money on raising kids. Having kids is a pretty fulfilling experience though. It's not something I understood until I had some. The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them.
- tasuki 3y ago
  > The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them. I often hear this, but it sounds like nonsense? Why obsess about what happens when you're old and infirm? It's going to suck regardless. One of my great aunts had no kids. She had a great life and lived to 95. As for avoiding struggling, I have a small kid and struggle. If you want to avoid struggle, having kids is a terrible idea.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Your aunt’s quality of life probably depended on the labor supplied by a large working age population. Assuming the pace of automation cannot keep up with proportion of working age population declines (i.e. total supply of labor), then it makes sense to predict higher competition for labor, via higher labor AND higher taxes/lower benefits and the political fight for those.
    - tasuki 3y ago
      Yes of course. I was not talking society-scale but individual-scale.
volkl48 3y ago
I don't think the data supports your hypothesis, at least if we're talking recent declines in rich countries from their prior levels and not trying to answer "why does the US have a lower birth rate than Mauritania". Birth rate declines in the US in the past 15-20 years have been entirely among the poor. Among the higher-income they've been basically stable. Here's a simple chart: https://www.statista.com/statistics/562541/birth-rate-by-poverty-status-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/562541/birth-rate-by-pov... From 2005-2021, the change in birth rates by group: Below poverty level - down 25% Income 100-199% of poverty level - down 15% Income 200%+ of poverty level - up 2%.

dbgev 3y ago

Throwing money at the problem (e.g. subsidizing healthcare, maternity leave, etc) probably doesn't help. Look at e.g. Australia and other rich western nations. Per capita health care spending is very high. Per capita wealth is very high. Amount of government money spent on various family support programmes is extremely high. Fertility is still low. Lower than poorer nations, in fact. Partly I think it's because teenagers / young adults are heavily discouraged from pregnancy. Maybe we should as a society push people to marry early, e.g. soon as they finish high school / during uni.

hollerith 3y ago

On a farm, children contribute to economic production; in a city, they are just expensive furniture.