3 ms·

One critical possibility was unmentioned. There seems to be a very strong argument that it's advertising that is driving declines in fertility rates. The entire

One critical possibility was unmentioned. There seems to be a very strong argument that it's advertising that is driving declines in fertility rates. The entire point of the modern advertising machine is to generate endless desires and wants that one might not otherwise have, always chasing the next product - basically to create consumerist societies. The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue. In most of every society, certainly including the US, there are plenty of people having children with far less than the incomes of these people that claim to be unable to afford it. So what they really mean is that they would rather spend their money on other things. But this is extremely unnatural. Our bodies and minds are heavily evolved to wanting to procreate - it takes a very strong force to fight back against the biological clock and it seems that advertising is just that force. I think evidence for this is widespread. Many places like Thailand have low education, low income, and low fertility (on par with Japan now). The classic explanations for declining fertility would predict high fertility in such a place. But what Thailand has is an exceptionally high degree of consumerism. And vice versa this also explains why religion often correlates strongly with fertility. There are varying views on sexuality, education, equality of the sexes, and so on - but most tend to offer a life purpose that supplants any meaningful role consumerism could have. Another bit of evidence is that fertility rates among the extremely rich are also extremely high. Again when one has billions of dollars you can't really be a consumerist because at that point there is basically nothing one could not buy, so you need to look elsewhere for meaning and fulfillment.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
someothherguyy 2y ago
> The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue. Source? https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-exp... This seems to say because they "don't want to"
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Your own source would be a good example. That study is 'p-hacked' to create a headline. They inexplicably limit the group they're talking about to those who say that they are unlikely to ever have children, which is a subset of the people who are not having children. It looks like they had to cull off about 60% of their sample. So a more accurate headline would be "people who don't plan to have kids say they don't want to have kids." Most people are going to think they're talking about all people, as you did here. The age sample is also probably intentionally biased. Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical. The reasons for an 18 year old not planning to have kids matter far less (from a social point of view), and have far less meaning/certainty, than an e.g. 30 year old saying the same. Most studies are broken into reasonable age buckets because of this. 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues. Even with their heavily biased sample, they only get 57% of their "young" group saying they just don't want to (and only 31% of the older group), whereas you get 79% saying they want to "afford the things they want", 75% saying "saving for the future", and so on.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    > Your own source would be a good example You say this then go on to shit on it and then only agree with parts that support your argument? > they are unlikely to ever have children This reports the same thing: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... > That study is 'p-hacked' Not typically how p-hacking is used? > Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical It looks like they selected the buckets on the criteria of being adults and physically able to have children. > 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues I guess? It probably made the survey easier to conduct though. > Even with their heavily biased sample Why is their sample biased? It was a survey of that population.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      No, you're not understanding. Amongst all people that are not having children there are two subsets - those that plan to never have children, and those that are unsure or plan to have children - just not right now. Those numbers Pew is publishing are only from the former. This is what I meant by saying that their headline is most aptly stated as, "[a very slight majority of] people who don't plan to ever have kids say they don't want to have kids." This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. A huge tell-tale sign of p-hacking is constraining one's sample in ways that don't really make sense and/or are likely to be misleading. The thing we were discussing is 'why people aren't having kids.' This is very different than why 'people who don't plan to ever have kids aren't having kids.'

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

someothherguyy 2y ago

> The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue. Source? https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-exp... This seems to say because they "don't want to"

somenameforme 2y ago
Your own source would be a good example. That study is 'p-hacked' to create a headline. They inexplicably limit the group they're talking about to those who say that they are unlikely to ever have children, which is a subset of the people who are not having children. It looks like they had to cull off about 60% of their sample. So a more accurate headline would be "people who don't plan to have kids say they don't want to have kids." Most people are going to think they're talking about all people, as you did here. The age sample is also probably intentionally biased. Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical. The reasons for an 18 year old not planning to have kids matter far less (from a social point of view), and have far less meaning/certainty, than an e.g. 30 year old saying the same. Most studies are broken into reasonable age buckets because of this. 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues. Even with their heavily biased sample, they only get 57% of their "young" group saying they just don't want to (and only 31% of the older group), whereas you get 79% saying they want to "afford the things they want", 75% saying "saving for the future", and so on.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  > Your own source would be a good example You say this then go on to shit on it and then only agree with parts that support your argument? > they are unlikely to ever have children This reports the same thing: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... > That study is 'p-hacked' Not typically how p-hacking is used? > Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical It looks like they selected the buckets on the criteria of being adults and physically able to have children. > 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues I guess? It probably made the survey easier to conduct though. > Even with their heavily biased sample Why is their sample biased? It was a survey of that population.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    No, you're not understanding. Amongst all people that are not having children there are two subsets - those that plan to never have children, and those that are unsure or plan to have children - just not right now. Those numbers Pew is publishing are only from the former. This is what I meant by saying that their headline is most aptly stated as, "[a very slight majority of] people who don't plan to ever have kids say they don't want to have kids." This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. A huge tell-tale sign of p-hacking is constraining one's sample in ways that don't really make sense and/or are likely to be misleading. The thing we were discussing is 'why people aren't having kids.' This is very different than why 'people who don't plan to ever have kids aren't having kids.'