3 ms·
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, wh
by 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 agoI 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 agoFertility 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 agoThere 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...