5 ms·

One of the interesting stats I learned recently is that if you are not a parent by the age of 30, there is a 50% chance that you will never be a parent.

QuarterReptile 3y ago
In the US? Genuinely curious who the dataset is for that.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I'd guess in the US, where the average age at first birth is 27. This is rather early by developed world countries; in most it's closer to 30, and in some it's above 30.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    there is no average US citizen, it makes no sense to assert based on that. Demographics are fundamentally groups of groups, that are different. People here on YNews would recognize quickly "overfitting" or other statistical errors, but this demographic human quality somehow eludes public conversation.
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      There is an average age that an American has their first child. No amount of 3+ syllable words negates that obvious fact...
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        no - in real life, each person has a child at some age. An aggregate of those numbers is still showing individual lives. Similar reasoning for "2.5 children" .. that is "average" but exactly zero people out of millions have 2.5 children in reality.
        DiggyJohnson 3y ago
        I’m not claiming that’s there such thing as an average person, just that there is an average age that a person has their first child.
        dekhn 3y ago
        So what? You're just saying the mean of a list of integers can be a rational number. There are a number of other ways to synthesize "Average" people from summary statistics, but none of this is worth being pedantic about.
        mistrial9 3y ago
        no sorry, its a beginner mistake to think that there are average people at all. For example, people who are not adults.. there is no meaning to "average" for children at 2 years, 6 years, 8 years, 12 years.. they are different. Its not an average.. it is a collection of groups.. Human populations are collections of groups that overlap in characteristics.. there is no "average" person
        mistrial9 3y ago
        from the other side, a real number product of mean, average etc. is .. a number. You can do lots of math with numbers, and you will get consistent results in a number sense.. but the model is not the creation
      - sethammons 3y ago
        On average, everyone has one testicle and one ovary. Cue the quote: there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statics
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
That's survivorship bias. You have eliminated from the sample all the people who wanted to have kid and already have one. It's unsurprising that people who don't want kids and will never have some are overly represented in the new sample.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  I don't think there is survivorship bias here. If you simply track the percentage of people having children over their lifetime you can build stats like this as a type of ground truth in relation to census data etc.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    The issue is not the veracity of the statistics. The statistic is correct (I have never implied otherwise by the way - no idea why I'm downvoted so much as what I wrote is perfectly true, the proportion of people who don't want kids is higher once you remove people who already had kids). The issue is in the interpretation. Your sampling is biased so the immediate conclusion is false. If you want kids and are over 30, your chances are better than 50%.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Related to this, the delta between those who want kids but will end up never having them is about 15% at the moment, which is a surprisingly large % of the population. You aren’t guaranteed what you want, especially when it comes to kids. The society that figures out how to properly overlap child rearing in an educational environment will survive. I’m fascinated with how much the world is going to change in the next century with most of the world set to shrink and be dominated by the elderly.
      - DrThunder 3y ago
        For one, welfare and retirement programs won't work. Those require at least an equal replacement population. Either the younger generation will be paying a lot more in with no return in later life, or they just won't be able to support the system.
jedberg 3y ago
Your (or their) conclusion from that data is wrong. You could just as easily say that if you aren't a parent at age 30, there is a 50% chance that you decided you wanted to be childless at 20. There isn't enough data to conclude one way or another. We need to know how many of those people over 30 still desire children but tried and failed, and then tried IVF and failed (or couldn't afford it), and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it or failed. You need a lot more data to come to the conclusion you did.
- dheera 3y ago
  > how many of those people over 30 still desire children but tried and failed, and then tried IVF and failed (or couldn't afford it), and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it or failed You're also missing some big ones: - people over 30 who have overly busy work schedules that prevent them from dating even though they want a partner and possibly kids - people over 30 who really want a romantic partner but can't find anyone who likes them, or lack the skills to engage in a healthy romantic relationship - people over 30 who for career reasons are stuck in a place that likely does not have any compatible partners within reasonable distance - people over 30 who want kids but aren't financially ready and voluntarily not having kids until/unless ready (but would if they suddenly make bank at 35).
- morpheuskafka 3y ago
  > and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but why would adoption cost that much more than having a biological child? Just reducing it to numbers you already skipped thousands of pregnancy, delivery, early infancy doctor costs. On the other hand, adopted children may be more likely to need therapy or other care later in life. Besides, isn't the government desperate for children to be adopted? The state has to pay all their expenses until then, and obviously it's in the best interest of the community for them to be adopted. I don't see why they would have any incentive to charge a lot of fees.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Everything after having the kid is the same cost, but acquiring through adoption is very expensive. Most unwanted kids are aborted, so there are fewer left to adopt compared to a century ago when orphanages were a major part of the community.
paxys 3y ago
Maybe technically correct but societal changes happen so rapidly that any such collected data is useless after a decade or two. A bachelor at 30 in the 60s or 70s was likely to stay a bachelor their entire life. Today the average age of marriage for men has risen beyond that.

QuarterReptile 3y ago

In the US? Genuinely curious who the dataset is for that.

rsynnott 3y ago
I'd guess in the US, where the average age at first birth is 27. This is rather early by developed world countries; in most it's closer to 30, and in some it's above 30.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  there is no average US citizen, it makes no sense to assert based on that. Demographics are fundamentally groups of groups, that are different. People here on YNews would recognize quickly "overfitting" or other statistical errors, but this demographic human quality somehow eludes public conversation.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    There is an average age that an American has their first child. No amount of 3+ syllable words negates that obvious fact...
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      no - in real life, each person has a child at some age. An aggregate of those numbers is still showing individual lives. Similar reasoning for "2.5 children" .. that is "average" but exactly zero people out of millions have 2.5 children in reality.
      - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
        I’m not claiming that’s there such thing as an average person, just that there is an average age that a person has their first child.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        So what? You're just saying the mean of a list of integers can be a rational number. There are a number of other ways to synthesize "Average" people from summary statistics, but none of this is worth being pedantic about.
        mistrial9 3y ago
        no sorry, its a beginner mistake to think that there are average people at all. For example, people who are not adults.. there is no meaning to "average" for children at 2 years, 6 years, 8 years, 12 years.. they are different. Its not an average.. it is a collection of groups.. Human populations are collections of groups that overlap in characteristics.. there is no "average" person
        mistrial9 3y ago
        from the other side, a real number product of mean, average etc. is .. a number. You can do lots of math with numbers, and you will get consistent results in a number sense.. but the model is not the creation
    - sethammons 3y ago
      On average, everyone has one testicle and one ovary. Cue the quote: there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statics

WastingMyTime89 3y ago

That's survivorship bias. You have eliminated from the sample all the people who wanted to have kid and already have one. It's unsurprising that people who don't want kids and will never have some are overly represented in the new sample.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
I don't think there is survivorship bias here. If you simply track the percentage of people having children over their lifetime you can build stats like this as a type of ground truth in relation to census data etc.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  The issue is not the veracity of the statistics. The statistic is correct (I have never implied otherwise by the way - no idea why I'm downvoted so much as what I wrote is perfectly true, the proportion of people who don't want kids is higher once you remove people who already had kids). The issue is in the interpretation. Your sampling is biased so the immediate conclusion is false. If you want kids and are over 30, your chances are better than 50%.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Related to this, the delta between those who want kids but will end up never having them is about 15% at the moment, which is a surprisingly large % of the population. You aren’t guaranteed what you want, especially when it comes to kids. The society that figures out how to properly overlap child rearing in an educational environment will survive. I’m fascinated with how much the world is going to change in the next century with most of the world set to shrink and be dominated by the elderly.
    - DrThunder 3y ago
      For one, welfare and retirement programs won't work. Those require at least an equal replacement population. Either the younger generation will be paying a lot more in with no return in later life, or they just won't be able to support the system.

jedberg 3y ago

Your (or their) conclusion from that data is wrong. You could just as easily say that if you aren't a parent at age 30, there is a 50% chance that you decided you wanted to be childless at 20. There isn't enough data to conclude one way or another. We need to know how many of those people over 30 still desire children but tried and failed, and then tried IVF and failed (or couldn't afford it), and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it or failed. You need a lot more data to come to the conclusion you did.

dheera 3y ago
> how many of those people over 30 still desire children but tried and failed, and then tried IVF and failed (or couldn't afford it), and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it or failed You're also missing some big ones: - people over 30 who have overly busy work schedules that prevent them from dating even though they want a partner and possibly kids - people over 30 who really want a romantic partner but can't find anyone who likes them, or lack the skills to engage in a healthy romantic relationship - people over 30 who for career reasons are stuck in a place that likely does not have any compatible partners within reasonable distance - people over 30 who want kids but aren't financially ready and voluntarily not having kids until/unless ready (but would if they suddenly make bank at 35).
morpheuskafka 3y ago
> and/or tried adoption but couldn't afford it I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but why would adoption cost that much more than having a biological child? Just reducing it to numbers you already skipped thousands of pregnancy, delivery, early infancy doctor costs. On the other hand, adopted children may be more likely to need therapy or other care later in life. Besides, isn't the government desperate for children to be adopted? The state has to pay all their expenses until then, and obviously it's in the best interest of the community for them to be adopted. I don't see why they would have any incentive to charge a lot of fees.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Everything after having the kid is the same cost, but acquiring through adoption is very expensive. Most unwanted kids are aborted, so there are fewer left to adopt compared to a century ago when orphanages were a major part of the community.

paxys 3y ago

Maybe technically correct but societal changes happen so rapidly that any such collected data is useless after a decade or two. A bachelor at 30 in the 60s or 70s was likely to stay a bachelor their entire life. Today the average age of marriage for men has risen beyond that.