3 ms·

I've done genealogy lately, and I've found out something that surprised me (but in retrospect, shouldn't have): It works the other way too. It's not just wealt

I've done genealogy lately, and I've found out something that surprised me (but in retrospect, shouldn't have): It works the other way too. It's not just wealthier people having less kids, it's families staying wealthier because they have few kids. Most of my ancestors were fairly poor, but it made a big difference whether they shared their inheritance with one sibling or with eight. It seems to have had a snowball effect too: it wasn't just that they inherited money, it was that they could use that money to get more money - and not necessarily even by working. There was plenty of rent-extraction in the 19th century which you didn't need to be a factory owner to do. And maybe there we are at the heart of the fertility issue: when owning stuff makes a larger difference to your kids' wealth than their own ability to work, you are effectively hurting the kids you already have when you decide to have one more kid. And it starts long before they get an inheritance.

hotpotamus 3y ago
> Oh, I have 3 kids and no money. Why can't I have no kids and 3 money!? - Homer Simpson That all seems fairly apparent to me - perhaps people have just become more numerate/economically savvy.
- vintermann 3y ago
  Yes, when you focus on the costs of raising kids, which are high today. But they weren't always as high, especially not the marginal costs of one more kid. Also, the key point is that when people's wealth are based mainly on work actually getting done, as on a farm with room to expand, then you get richer with more kids. It's when access to capital becomes more important - including as land becomes expensive - that you get poorer with more kids.