3 ms·
That doesn't really gel with the global nature of the trend. Something extremely foundational is happening, probably related to advances in contraception in the
by roenxi 3y ago
That doesn't really gel with the global nature of the trend. Something extremely foundational is happening, probably related to advances in contraception in the 60s. You're going to cultural factors. If it was that then there'd be advanced countries somewhere with high birth rates.
- morkalork 3y agoContraception is a means to an end. It only gives people a chance another way to choose. It doesn't change the calculus of why they choose one thing or another.
- nemomarx 3y agoThe most direct conclusion is that people didn't really /want/ to have kids, they didn't have a choice or they felt they needed to have large families for other social reasons (like risks of those kids dying, the need for people to take care of you later in life, cultural assumptions). If you change contraception and push culture a bit, people's revealed preferences are saving money or spending it on themselves over having kids, is all. This seems to basically track across every region.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> spending it on themselves over having kids Not at all, it’s that having kids used to be financially beneficial for parents, and now it’s horrendously expensive. The situation changed 180 And in addition, threat of climate change means you aren’t sure into what kind of world you are bringing children
- Brybry 3y agoU.S. fertility rate was dropping long before the 60s (and even before the great depression) [1] though it does sound like contraception may have had an impact. [2] [1] https://www.prb.org/resources/the-decline-in-u-s-fertility https://www.prb.org/resources/the-decline-in-u-s-fertility [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm