5 ms·

This claim doesn't add up. The fertility rate actually increases the lower your income is, that is, the richer you are the less likely you are to have kids. Th

by Kranar 3y ago

This claim doesn't add up. The fertility rate actually increases the lower your income is, that is, the richer you are the less likely you are to have kids. The issue is not that kids are expensive, it's that once you reach a certain level of income you don't want to give up your lifestyle in order to raise kids. People who are lower income don't have to give up on a lifestyle in order to have kids. They still have to work incredibly hard in order to raise kids, absolutely, but it's not like if they didn't raise kids they'd be able to go on vacations, enjoy eating out more often, attend more expensive social events with friends, etc...

taurath 3y ago
The fertility rate also lowers for other factors. Declines do not match up with incomes - I think implying cost of living, which is what anecdotally almost everyone I know says, is a nonfactor may be premature. In the US the birthrate has been mostly the same since the early 70s. The difference between the top and bottom birthrates by income is all of 28% (45 per 1000 women for $200k or more, vs 63 per 1000 women for under $10k) - thats significant but certainly not the only factor.
- Kranar 3y ago
  You argued that there are people in their 30s who can just afford food and shelter and implied that they are not having kids due to their economic situation, whereas 20 years ago (so in 2003) they would have had kids, presumably because their economic situation would have been better 20 years ago. Yet the statistics show that: 1. Those with lower incomes have more kids than those with higher incomes. 2. This trend has existed for more than 20 years, closer to 50 years in fact. Now that I've pointed this out you seem to want to argue that income is not the only factor that determines fertility rates. Certainly that is true, but given that it's true why did you seem to emphasize it so strongly in your post when it supported the conclusion you wanted to make, but when I point out the opposite only then do you decide to diminish the relationship between income and fertility? If the relationship between income and fertility is not that significant when I point it out, then it's not that significant when you want to use it for your argument either in which case your entire point kind of falls apart. Finally as an aside, there is no shortage of countries with either cheap or even free child care, mostly in wealthy countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway. But guess what? Fertility rates in those countries are incredibly low.
  - taurath 3y ago
    I don't think the two points are orthogonal, I think they're complimentary - please don't look for conflict here where I'm simply trying to reflect on multiple ideas. It could be that folks with higher incomes have a much higher expectation of quality of life, in terms of outcomes and activities for their children, it could be that people with higher incomes get greedy. In either case, an lesser cost of living might give more of them. Of people you know with higher incomes, why do they choose not to have kids? Again, its less than a 30% difference between the highest income and lowest income. The difference between the middle incomes and the lowest income is less than 15%. Simply saying that there are more factors at play, which I don't think is controversial.
  - m_eiman 3y ago
    > Fertility rates in those countries are incredibly low. Fertility in Sweden has been higher than the average EU rate for a long time (although I think it's been a bit lower recently), and that has been attributed to the generous family policies and access to cheap (and good) childcare. 480 days of tax-funded parental leave per child (caveat emptor, terms and conditions apply). Tax-supported child care, max cost per month to parents at about $100 per child. Parents are allowed by law to select to 75% during the child's first 7 years. About $100 per month and child in tax-funded child benefit(?).
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Fertility rates in Sweden are very low among the native Swedish population, and very high among the large immigrant population from the Middle East, where each woman will have 8+ children. That high birthrate is completely cultural and not affected by economic factors or anything else, as anybody following the development in Gaza has noticed.
      - m_eiman 3y ago
        There is a difference, but it’s not that big: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningsframskrivningar/befolkningsframskrivningar/pong/tabell-och-diagram/antal-barn-per-kvinna-efter-fodelseland-samt-framskrivning/ https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befo...
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  You know, a 28% difference in a factor that gets applied exponentially is a huge difference.
Manuel_D 3y ago
An alternate explanation is that high income people have high expectations of their children. An upper-class couple is probably going to want to send their kids to private school, do competitive sports, tutor them in an instrument, etc. Thus, the cost of children is higher for wealthier people.

by Kranar 3y ago

taurath 3y ago

The fertility rate also lowers for other factors. Declines do not match up with incomes - I think implying cost of living, which is what anecdotally almost everyone I know says, is a nonfactor may be premature. In the US the birthrate has been mostly the same since the early 70s. The difference between the top and bottom birthrates by income is all of 28% (45 per 1000 women for $200k or more, vs 63 per 1000 women for under $10k) - thats significant but certainly not the only factor.

Kranar 3y ago
You argued that there are people in their 30s who can just afford food and shelter and implied that they are not having kids due to their economic situation, whereas 20 years ago (so in 2003) they would have had kids, presumably because their economic situation would have been better 20 years ago. Yet the statistics show that: 1. Those with lower incomes have more kids than those with higher incomes. 2. This trend has existed for more than 20 years, closer to 50 years in fact. Now that I've pointed this out you seem to want to argue that income is not the only factor that determines fertility rates. Certainly that is true, but given that it's true why did you seem to emphasize it so strongly in your post when it supported the conclusion you wanted to make, but when I point out the opposite only then do you decide to diminish the relationship between income and fertility? If the relationship between income and fertility is not that significant when I point it out, then it's not that significant when you want to use it for your argument either in which case your entire point kind of falls apart. Finally as an aside, there is no shortage of countries with either cheap or even free child care, mostly in wealthy countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway. But guess what? Fertility rates in those countries are incredibly low.
- taurath 3y ago
  I don't think the two points are orthogonal, I think they're complimentary - please don't look for conflict here where I'm simply trying to reflect on multiple ideas. It could be that folks with higher incomes have a much higher expectation of quality of life, in terms of outcomes and activities for their children, it could be that people with higher incomes get greedy. In either case, an lesser cost of living might give more of them. Of people you know with higher incomes, why do they choose not to have kids? Again, its less than a 30% difference between the highest income and lowest income. The difference between the middle incomes and the lowest income is less than 15%. Simply saying that there are more factors at play, which I don't think is controversial.
- m_eiman 3y ago
  > Fertility rates in those countries are incredibly low. Fertility in Sweden has been higher than the average EU rate for a long time (although I think it's been a bit lower recently), and that has been attributed to the generous family policies and access to cheap (and good) childcare. 480 days of tax-funded parental leave per child (caveat emptor, terms and conditions apply). Tax-supported child care, max cost per month to parents at about $100 per child. Parents are allowed by law to select to 75% during the child's first 7 years. About $100 per month and child in tax-funded child benefit(?).
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Fertility rates in Sweden are very low among the native Swedish population, and very high among the large immigrant population from the Middle East, where each woman will have 8+ children. That high birthrate is completely cultural and not affected by economic factors or anything else, as anybody following the development in Gaza has noticed.
    - m_eiman 3y ago
      There is a difference, but it’s not that big: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningsframskrivningar/befolkningsframskrivningar/pong/tabell-och-diagram/antal-barn-per-kvinna-efter-fodelseland-samt-framskrivning/ https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befo...
Paul-Craft 3y ago
You know, a 28% difference in a factor that gets applied exponentially is a huge difference.

Manuel_D 3y ago

An alternate explanation is that high income people have high expectations of their children. An upper-class couple is probably going to want to send their kids to private school, do competitive sports, tutor them in an instrument, etc. Thus, the cost of children is higher for wealthier people.