23 ms·

>Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material t

>Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material that feeds the prison system: As one generation ages out, another takes its place on the same horrid journey. Another factor which will soon impact this, if it isn't already, is the rapidly changing nature of youth. Fertility rates have been dropping since 2009 or so. Average age of parents is increasing. Teen pregnancy on a long and rapid decline. All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 1y ago
> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids. Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.
- c22 1y ago
  I had kids in my late 30s and they tested my patience and emotional regulation to an extent greater than any other experience of my life. I was somewhat emotionally volatile in my 20s and I can't imagine my kids having better outcomes if I'd had to learn to parent at that time in my life.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    A lot of people are "emotionally volatile" in their 20s because they don't have the growth in responsibility and maturity motivated by being a parent.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - wvenable 1y ago
    My children are 12 years apart in age and being a parent in my 20s was a much better experience. I had less money, but I had more time. I wiser now, but I had more energy. I could relate to being a kid more. I'm not suggesting it's better. But people seem to automatically assume that being older when having kids as better. I know some much older parents who were not good parents. I know I would not make a good parent to a younger child now that I'm in my 40s.
    - anyfoo 1y ago
      I did not have more time in my 20s. In my 20s and early 30s, I was busy “getting out there”. Building my life, my interests, my foundation (not just my career). Now I have a happy life to stand on, and can devote more time, attention, and energy to my family. I don’t deny that your way can work out as well. But OPs advice was “get children before you are 30, don’t wait until after”. Whereas my honest advice, based on my experience, is “wait until you are 35, you’ll be much more stable life in several regards”. Which approach is best for you depends on a lot of things. For me, I can honestly say, there is no way I would be where I am if I had had kids in my 20s or even early 30s, and I also wouldn’t have been as good a father as I am right now based on how I’ve grown since then. Both things that my child directly benefits from.
      - wvenable 1y ago
        I was “getting out there” too! So many major life milestones. But actually it has never stopped. Most of my major career changes happened after the second child. I have entirely new interests now. I feel like I do have the unique perspective having actually done both. I don't need to assume what kind of parent I was in my 20s because I was that parent. And I'm a different parent now. But being a younger parent was a great experience despite any other consequences.
- anyfoo 1y ago
  We did wait for the “perfect” time, and are very happy we did. I got my son at almost 40, and I’m positive I’m a much better parent because of that. Sure, kids cost energy, but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. I often get the opportunity to compare our parenting style to younger parents, and it’s clear that they often have some emotional growing up to do themselves. They complain about normal parenting things that we just shrug about, they are torn between their career and raising a kid, and most importantly they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.
  - Izikiel43 1y ago
    > but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. biologically, and for pregnancy, yes you are.
    - anyfoo 1y ago
      I didn’t say get pregnant at 50. I said I became a parent at almost 40, my wife is a couple of years younger. No problems whatsoever, and I seem to have more energy for parenting (and especially patience) than the parents in their 20s who haven’t even found themselves yet.
    - malcolmgreaves 1y ago
      It's actually the age of the egg that matters most, not the age of the mother during pregnancy.
      - pnw 1y ago
        Paternal age is also a contributor. Children with fathers over 40 see an increase in potential diseases, a shorter lifespan and higher infant mortality, likely due to DNA mutations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
        anyfoo 1y ago
        According to that page, the whole issue seems to be very nuanced. It also contains the quotes I attached below. Be it as it may, I conclude that there is an elevated risk for problems the older you get (although for some issues, cause and effect may be reversed, which is hard to resolve), but that that risk may not be so significant as to outweigh other advantages. > A simulation study concluded that reported paternal age effects on psychiatric disorders in the epidemiological literature are too large to be explained only by mutations. They conclude that a model in which parents with a genetic liability to psychiatric illness tend to reproduce later better explains the literature.[9] > Later age at parenthood is also associated with a more stable family environment, with older parents being less likely to divorce or change partners.[43] Older parents also tend to occupy a higher socio-economic position and report feeling more devoted to their children and satisfied with their family.[43] On the other hand, the risk of the father dying before the child becomes an adult increases with paternal age.[43] > According to a 2006 review, any adverse effects of advanced paternal age "should be weighed up against potential social advantages for children born to older fathers who are more likely to have progressed in their career and to have achieved financial security."[63]
- pamelafox 1y ago
  I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age. It was really nice that I had time to establish my career and figure things out before having kids.
  - Swizec 1y ago
    > In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age San Francisco has the highest rate of geriatric pregnancies in USA. We are in a statistical bubble where having kids late is normal (because careers and hcol). https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/mother-birth-age-oldest-nationally-20269493.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/mother-birth-age...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Bubble implies that it's going to burst. I don't see it. Women aren't going to stop wanting careers, and HCOL is coming for everybody. I expect the whole country to join SF in this "bubble".
      - TeaBrain 1y ago
        Bubble in this context means a unique environment that is unlike places on the outside of said bubble. It's not referring to a bubble like in the sense of a inflating market bubble.
      - Spooky23 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Karrot_Kream 1y ago
  Obviously I think the answer to this question depends so much on individual circumstances that all any of us can do is offer anecdotes. I think that while energy levels do decline as you get older, the degree of the decline depends largely on how much you stay in shape. My partner and I are very active and find ourselves only marginally less physically energetic in our 30s as our 20s. I've seen friends of ours with more sedentary lifestyles having a much sharper decline. If you're inclined to stay in shape then I don't think age makes as big of a difference (within reason.) But YMMV.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 I had my kids 25-35; all 5 are adults. We live together as is befitting a 4 income economy. > and if the kids goes to college Do you mean go away to college? Yeah. No. > may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Me and peers are all working grey. End of career happens with first major illness intersects with the lack of health insurance and we die. > Plus if your kids have kids If one of my a sons pairs off with someone and they both work, they'll still be 2 typical incomes short of self sustenance. BUT, if they got married and then married another couple, the 4 of them only have to find one more adult - the one who will parent during the work day. After the last child enters school, the core 4 can kick parent 5 to the curb. > Do not let fear of how much it will cost No fear. Just math. > or desire for more resources first But if they had more resources they might only need 3 or even 2 adults working full time to afford basic bills. > Do not let ... it ... stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well. Parents can (and do) parent while living in their car...
  - graemep 1y ago
    SO what? That is well below retirement age and life expectancy. MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58, and I am a single parent. Baring accidents or the severely unexpected (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s) its not a problem.
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > That is well below retirement age and life expectancy. What is below RA/LE? My comment addressed common financial realities. It applied to every adult age, up to and including death. > MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58 okay. > and I am a single parent. You may be interested to know that parenting can be get much harder than that. ex: I would have loved my difficulty level to be dialed down to Single Parent. > Baring accidents or the severely unexpected I agree that some folks do experience year after year after year of luck. > (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s) I agree that not having life-changing advantage & luck is pretty dang common. > its not a problem. What's not a problem? Taken together, your comment seems to be lacking a subject. I did the best I could. If you could share which of my points you were responding to, that might help.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  > Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. Depending on the circumstances in a persons country, maybe getting children at a young age isn't that dumb. I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student, grandparents are younger and able to help more and you have more energy and can more easily deal with lose of sleep. As a bonus, when your kids move out, you're not even 40 year olds. The only real issue is: Have you meet the right partner yet?
  - arkey 1y ago
    > I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student... Where... where do you live? I'm all for having kids as soon as possible, but I was barely able to provide for just myself during university.
    - mrweasel 1y ago
      I'm in Denmark. You get around $1100 per month from the government as a university student, you then get around the same amount per child (not sure if a couple get half of that each). Still if you're two students, with a child, that's at least $3300 a month. That's not a lot of money, but there are also government loans you can get, and again, free daycare and subsidies for housing. It's not a get rich scheme, but it's also only meant to be temporary i.e. until you finish your studies.
      - arkey 1y ago
        That's amazing. I'm in Spain, absolutely different landscape here. I guess your government is trying to boost both higher education and birth rates.
        mrweasel 1y ago
- Aeolun 1y ago
  I concur. Kids would have been much better at 20 than at 30. I can barely keep up with what they want to do now. If you live in a decent country it’s not even that expensive. Most states really want people to have children, so the basics are often supported or free.
- sim7c00 1y ago
  most ppl in my region have kids 35+ in order to first find a place in life that can support children. i don't see any issues with that. having energy is subjective and does not really depend on being young or old. some old folks are full of energy and live really active lives. It depends on your state of mind and lifestyle more than age.
- grumpymuppet 1y ago
  We were 38 with our first. I strongly agree that is too late to have them, especially given the likelihood of birth defects. Thankfully, we avoided issues there. A few years in and I feel "back on my feet", but it was harder for being older.
- MaxHoppersGhost 1y ago
  I think having kids when you’re in your early 30s is the way to go but having kids at any age is great. I think waiting until later is a mistake because you want a full life with your kids and ideally you can bless your parents with grandkids (they most likely want one, even if they say they don’t). But not having kids because you “waited too long” is a bigger mistake. Kids take a lot of energy but they also give you a lot, no matter the age. We are biologically hardwired to rise to the challenge of having kids no matter the age.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Lifestyle is key here. An older friend conveyed to me pretty much the exact same thing you are, that he cannot imagine having kids at 40 because you will not be able to keep up with them energy wise. You get old and your body really starts to give in. Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change. Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.
  - tsunamifury 1y ago
    This is ridiculous. I’m 40 and in moderately good physical condition (I can lift and run many miles). I am perfectly capable of keeping up with my kids. My 72 year old father who is also in good condition keeps up with my 3 year old son. The difference I see between a reasonably fit 40 year old and not is the massive gap.
  - winter_blue 1y ago
    > Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change. > Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money. Yup, this is very much key.
  - CPLX 1y ago
    My son was born when I was 45 and I absolutely could not be more happy about it. I am in way better shape than I was at 30, I finally started taking that seriously, and also I am way wiser, more patient, and have more money. So if you hear anyone telling you they can't imagine late fatherhood ignore them, they obviously aren't good at imagining things.
    - jajko 1y ago
      While generally true, you are not the only one aging around you, and some sickness/accident stuff can happen with higher probability as years add up. The chance you will need to take care of both your kids and your parents in your 50s is pretty high (not even going into you and your partner), while facing declining health yourself. Could be easily manageable, or not. Ask me in a decade. But one thing is darn true - if a good long term stable match is not there, no point pushing for kids. World really doesnt need more damaged folks struggling their whole lives to overcome shitty childhood. And thats fine, parenthood is not for everybody and there can be an amazing life to be had instead (and I mean it in best way possible, but that life shouod not be spent behind the desk and on the couch)
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  This is a very good comment. I had my first kid in my mid-20s and my next two in my late 30s. There are definitely pros and cons, but overall I'd recommend kids in mid- to late-20s. >However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. Yes! There is no perfect time to have kids, but there will definitely be a time when having kids isn't biologically likely anymore
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  there are also age correlated birth defects, the cause of which have not been adequately determined in all cases but the high correlation does suggest a relation.
- Justsignedup 1y ago
  I had a kid at 22, I am now 40 with a kid going to college. I can echo this exact sentiment. However at 22 I wasn't the experienced person I am today. Nor was I stable, nor could I jump on opportunities like my peers could. If having a child in your early 20s would mean not losing opportunities in progressing in a career, at least with enough free childcare and food to feed the children, people could be more inclined to have children while they get their life together. Our culture of moving away from home is also a big problem -- having 2 sets of grandparents helping raise a child REALLY helped me at my youth not miss out on youth and still raise my child. kids between 25-32 is something our society should aim to be as practical and pleasant as possible.
  - specialist 1y ago
    Was also a young parent. Empathetic yes to all. Securing stable health insurance dictated most of my career decisions. I was captive to turrible gigs, had to pass on a lot of opportunities. Want to revitalize our society? #1 is Medicare for All. More startups, more risk taking & innovation, higher birth rate, etc. #2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality. #3 is housing. Again: Cheap, plentiful, good quality. Plus, rentals better suited for young families (eg more 2 & 3 bedroom units).
    - complianceowl 1y ago
      I think willing to take a cut in one's standard of living so that the mother stays at home and raises the children would revitalize society beyond any of the above-mentioned options.
      - specialist 1y ago
        Or... Raise wages while reducing housing and insurance costs so that a single wage earner home can support their family. What my grandpa and grandma used to call "the middle class".
        complianceowl 1y ago
- complianceowl 1y ago
  As someone who is 34 with two kids (toddler and newborn), I completely agree with your comment. My wife and I had difficulty having kids, or we would've had them sooner, but I completely agree with having kids before 30. My energy is still solid, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't compare to energy in your 20s. People think too much about the financial aspect. You can continue building and growing financially even with kids, you just need to be smarter and more disciplined. A lot of people use the financial argument, but I think more and more, it is only a cope for not having had kinds sooner. All my kids will be in their 20s when I'm in my 50s; not bad, but having kids in your 20s is the way to go.
- georgeecollins 1y ago
  I think having kids before you are 30 is fine, but we had our second kid when my wife was 36 and it was also fine. I think when you get in your forties as a man or late thirties as a woman it can be tougher. Also, adopt. Before I was a parent I thought of a child as "mine" because of biology. Really you see that you shape people and form a connection with them because they are part of your family.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    > I think having kids before you are 30 is fine, but we had our second kid when my wife was 36 and it was also fine. Which is another important point: if you want multiple children you probably want to have your first earlier than you might otherwise.
- emptysongglass 1y ago
  > If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them I need to push back on this because no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out and assuming a partner of similar age, neither do they. It's only starting in your 30s where you start to understand what it is to be a responsible adult to yourself and to the world. So please, do not seriously consider having kids in your 20s, for all our sakes.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    > no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out Too strong. You're an adult who doesn't have their shit figured out. Some people never get it figured out, others take into their 30s, 40s or even 50s. And then in your 60s, you've got new shit to figure out.
    - kulahan 1y ago
      Isn’t your brain still forming until you’re like… 26? It’s probably more correct to say that 25 year olds are children in that case. Other ages are mostly arbitrary.
  - NeutralCrane 1y ago
    This is a level of infantilization that I think becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don’t magically become adults, they learn to be adults based on the situations they are placed in. It seems to me like when you move the definition of “adulthood” back to age X, fewer people function like adults prior to age X.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  You speak way off base. Many, possibly most people in their early 40s can have kids and still keep up with them well into their 50s. Not only is it easier than ever to pull this off for many modern reasons of health and lifestyle decisions, it's not even exceptionally hard unless you're unlucky with your health or do something to really fuck it up. Even decades ago, many many men at least were commonly fathering children in their 40s and even 50s, and rearing them. You write your comment about the maximum safe age for having children as if most people (at least in the advanced countries and moderately reasonable income brackets) were living the lives of 19th century industrial workers.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    You can. However it gets more dificult
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
It's lead. Lead concentration in America "rapidly increased in the 1950s and then declined in the 1980s" [1]. There is a non-linear discontinuity among kids born in the mid 80s, with linear improvements through to those born in the late 2000s [2]. Arrest rates for violent crimes are highest from 15 to 29 years old (particularly 17 to 23-year olds) [3]. They're particularly low for adults after 50 years old. We're around 40 years from the last of the high-lead children. 17 years ago is the late 2000s. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618223002951 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10406... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7932 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7932 [3] https://kagi.com/assistant/d2c6fdd5-73dd-4952-ae40-1f36aef1e268 https://kagi.com/assistant/d2c6fdd5-73dd-4952-ae40-1f36aef1e...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- PartiallyTyped 1y ago
  Can we blame lead for the US’ electoral landscape too?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Can we blame lead for the US’ electoral landscape too? More of a pet theory, but voters born between 1950 and 1980, boomers and Gen X, have had a well-documented set of policy preferences.
    - ivape 1y ago
      What if I told you voters born between nnnn-yyyy had a set of policy preferences?
      - kayodelycaon 1y ago
        There’s supposedly a cycle of attitude between generations. If your parents are X, you want to be Y. If your parents are Y, you want to be Z. If your parents are Z, you want to be X
spinner34f 1y ago
The flip-side of an aging society with declining fertility is that older people, with fewer children are likely to be less sympathetic to children, and you could see the incarceration rates increase, or remain steady, as less severe infractions are punished more harshly. We recently saw this play out in the Queensland, Australia, state election where the opposition party, which was pretty much out of ideas, ran a scare campaign about youth crime in regional areas. Neighbourhood Facebook Groups where CCTV footage of "suspicious youth" are a mainstay and an aging population did the rest of the job and they won the election and passed "adult time for adult crime" laws: whether you agree with these or not, "adult time" in Australia means that the youth incarcerated will be adults in their 20s and 30s when they get out. The Australian state of New South Wales routinely strip-searches young children, but again, there isn't much outcry. It will be interesting to see how this plays out elsewhere. The worst case scenario is that kids will be politically scapegoated ("why should childless and aging taxpayers fund education?"), and it leads to a further decline in fertility rates.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  Australia has had pretty terrible “jail children like adults” opinions for a long time. Politics in Melbourne constantly turns on fears of youth [black immigrant] crime waves that are making people afraid to leave the house. https://raisetheage.org.au/ https://raisetheage.org.au/
  - Nursie 1y ago
    Queensland seems to be making a lot of noise about that at the moment as well. Seems to be this weird reasoning (and I know it has cropped up in the US too) that - if they did an 'adult' crime they should be tried as an adult. It totally ignores what we know about developing brains - they are not fully developed, they don't consider consequences the same way as older people. That's not to say they should be allowed to 'get away with it', but we need to take into account that it's not really the same thing as adults doing it.
    - worthless-trash 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
frollogaston 1y ago
But it's not uniform. In the span of ~60 years, the average birth rate doesn't matter as much as the distribution and how much the children model their parents. Small example (multiply all numbers by 1M), average birth rate of 1.5 can be a group of 4 people where one had 0 children, one had 1, one had 2, one had 3. If each child has as many children as its parents, next generation, 0 have 0 children, 1 has 1, 2 have 2, 3 have 3, for a new average of 2.33. If you take a higher starting average but a tight spread [2, 2, 2, 2], the next average is only 2. Or if you have [0, 1, 2, 3] but kids model society instead of parents, you get 1.5 again. Of course children didn't model their parents the past couple of generations, but times may be changing.
naasking 1y ago
> All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out. Or the less popular more controversial hypothesis: the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and more issues with mental health, and since all qualities are at least partly heritable... Surprisingly, the fertility rate among the affluent does not appear to be nearly as impacted.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and more issues with mental health, and since all qualities are at least partly heritable... Surprisingly, the fertility rate among the affluent does not appear to be nearly as impacted. Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations. This pattern is observed both at the national level, with poorer countries generally having higher fertility rates than wealthier ones, and at the individual level, with poorer families tending to have more children than wealthier families. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link-fertility-income https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link...
  - naasking 1y ago
    > Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations. Yes, but they were even higher in the past. Fertility has declined among the poorer classes much more than among higher income classes, probably due to the availability of contraceptives and abortion: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs5lgb_bIAAYoo1?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs5lgb_bIAAYoo1?format=jpg
dcow 1y ago
We may have swung the pendulum a little too far towards deliberate, though. The birthrate right now is below replacement rate, meaning that if we keep going like this (even if the birthrate doesn't keep trending down and holds steady) that society will die off. We need to figure out how to build an economy and society that can facilitate deliberate responsible parentage younger and more often. Luckily we have generations to solve the problem, but it’s there looming.
- TrueTom 1y ago
  This is not going to happen when you can just import people from other countries.
  - ipdashc 1y ago
    ... until, obviously, those countries' populations start declining as well?
  - forgotoldacc 1y ago
    Every country on earth is trending downwards. A lot of currently immigrant-exporting countries (e.g. Vietnam, India, Mexico) have sub-replacement levels of birth. They're going to have absolutely massive problems in a few decades when a lot of their youth have left and they're stuck with an inverted population pyramid. There's a tendency for people in developed (particularly western) countries to feel entitled to immigrants. It's weird to think you'll not only have people changing your diapers when you're 90, but that your country should actively bring in people and deprive poorer countries of similar care, then leave those poor working class immigrants to fend for themselves once they're old. It's the same mindset that drove society since the 1950s: it makes my life convenient, who cares if it makes life harder for people far from me or after I'm dead? And now we're all living with the accumulated consequences of all that (depleted ozone, climate change, ocean acidification, microplastics, oceans stripped of life, teflon pollution, deforestation, CO2 rising rapidly). The world needs better solutions.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > This is not going to happen when you can just import people from other countries. That's basically the same solution as dumping toxic waste overseas: you're just shifting the problem (depopulation) to someplace poorer and probably less able to deal with it. Birthrates are declining everywhere, and the current global fertility rate is at replacement (so don't expect it to stay that high). In the future, there's going to be no magical place from which you can "import" all the people you need, because you chose not to make them yourself.
mc32 1y ago
We still need to improve the numbers regarding single (&absent) parent households.
buckle8017 1y ago
The entire premise of the article is that fewer crimes are being committed by youth because arrests are down. That's wrong, actually what's happening is police have just given up on arresting kids who will be released.
worldsayshi 1y ago
You're half implying this but I wonder if the change in youth culture comes from the simple ratio of adults vs kids in the social circle around each kid. Youth culture needs a lot of kids around to get amplified. When most of the people around you are adult you may tend to adopt the culture of the adult world rather than creating your own.
_zagj 1y ago
Or maybe it's just today's youth are too neurotic, anti-social, and screen-addicted to go out into the real world and misbehave? They're also having less sex, and drinking less as well. Also consider that it's much harder to get away with crimes today than it was decades ago, and penalties for getting caught are often more severe.
zellyn 1y ago
If you do decide to wait longer, be aware that there are hilarious differences geographically. When we had our first kid in SF, the other dads pushing swings were around the same age as me (fortyish). Moving back to Georgia… oh my god, the parents of kids my second kid’s age were babies! (There are “graybeard dad” Facebook groups etc., but the average vibe is way different)
- sixothree 1y ago
  Crime rates in Georgia are higher. So there's that.
  - NeutralCrane 1y ago
    On the flip side the average age of parents in Utah is extremely low and the crime rate is also below average. So it may be more nuanced than you would think.
    - insane_dreamer 1y ago
      confounding factor: Mormons
- meindnoch 1y ago
  >the parents of kids my second kid’s age were babies Babies can have kids?
  - bombcar 1y ago
    A parent who’s forty with a newborn will feel that the 20-year old with a newborn is “babies havin’ babies” as Strong bad would say.
    - Melatonic 1y ago
      Strong Bad - now thats a throwback!
    - deleted 1y ago
arresin 1y ago
With this and robotics advancement maybe everything could work out.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 1y ago

> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids. Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.

c22 1y ago
I had kids in my late 30s and they tested my patience and emotional regulation to an extent greater than any other experience of my life. I was somewhat emotionally volatile in my 20s and I can't imagine my kids having better outcomes if I'd had to learn to parent at that time in my life.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  A lot of people are "emotionally volatile" in their 20s because they don't have the growth in responsibility and maturity motivated by being a parent.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- wvenable 1y ago
  My children are 12 years apart in age and being a parent in my 20s was a much better experience. I had less money, but I had more time. I wiser now, but I had more energy. I could relate to being a kid more. I'm not suggesting it's better. But people seem to automatically assume that being older when having kids as better. I know some much older parents who were not good parents. I know I would not make a good parent to a younger child now that I'm in my 40s.
  - anyfoo 1y ago
    I did not have more time in my 20s. In my 20s and early 30s, I was busy “getting out there”. Building my life, my interests, my foundation (not just my career). Now I have a happy life to stand on, and can devote more time, attention, and energy to my family. I don’t deny that your way can work out as well. But OPs advice was “get children before you are 30, don’t wait until after”. Whereas my honest advice, based on my experience, is “wait until you are 35, you’ll be much more stable life in several regards”. Which approach is best for you depends on a lot of things. For me, I can honestly say, there is no way I would be where I am if I had had kids in my 20s or even early 30s, and I also wouldn’t have been as good a father as I am right now based on how I’ve grown since then. Both things that my child directly benefits from.
    - wvenable 1y ago
      I was “getting out there” too! So many major life milestones. But actually it has never stopped. Most of my major career changes happened after the second child. I have entirely new interests now. I feel like I do have the unique perspective having actually done both. I don't need to assume what kind of parent I was in my 20s because I was that parent. And I'm a different parent now. But being a younger parent was a great experience despite any other consequences.
anyfoo 1y ago
We did wait for the “perfect” time, and are very happy we did. I got my son at almost 40, and I’m positive I’m a much better parent because of that. Sure, kids cost energy, but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. I often get the opportunity to compare our parenting style to younger parents, and it’s clear that they often have some emotional growing up to do themselves. They complain about normal parenting things that we just shrug about, they are torn between their career and raising a kid, and most importantly they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.
- Izikiel43 1y ago
  > but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. biologically, and for pregnancy, yes you are.
  - anyfoo 1y ago
    I didn’t say get pregnant at 50. I said I became a parent at almost 40, my wife is a couple of years younger. No problems whatsoever, and I seem to have more energy for parenting (and especially patience) than the parents in their 20s who haven’t even found themselves yet.
  - malcolmgreaves 1y ago
    It's actually the age of the egg that matters most, not the age of the mother during pregnancy.
    - pnw 1y ago
      Paternal age is also a contributor. Children with fathers over 40 see an increase in potential diseases, a shorter lifespan and higher infant mortality, likely due to DNA mutations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
      - anyfoo 1y ago
        According to that page, the whole issue seems to be very nuanced. It also contains the quotes I attached below. Be it as it may, I conclude that there is an elevated risk for problems the older you get (although for some issues, cause and effect may be reversed, which is hard to resolve), but that that risk may not be so significant as to outweigh other advantages. > A simulation study concluded that reported paternal age effects on psychiatric disorders in the epidemiological literature are too large to be explained only by mutations. They conclude that a model in which parents with a genetic liability to psychiatric illness tend to reproduce later better explains the literature.[9] > Later age at parenthood is also associated with a more stable family environment, with older parents being less likely to divorce or change partners.[43] Older parents also tend to occupy a higher socio-economic position and report feeling more devoted to their children and satisfied with their family.[43] On the other hand, the risk of the father dying before the child becomes an adult increases with paternal age.[43] > According to a 2006 review, any adverse effects of advanced paternal age "should be weighed up against potential social advantages for children born to older fathers who are more likely to have progressed in their career and to have achieved financial security."[63]
pamelafox 1y ago
I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age. It was really nice that I had time to establish my career and figure things out before having kids.
- Swizec 1y ago
  > In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age San Francisco has the highest rate of geriatric pregnancies in USA. We are in a statistical bubble where having kids late is normal (because careers and hcol). https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/mother-birth-age-oldest-nationally-20269493.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/mother-birth-age...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Bubble implies that it's going to burst. I don't see it. Women aren't going to stop wanting careers, and HCOL is coming for everybody. I expect the whole country to join SF in this "bubble".
    - TeaBrain 1y ago
      Bubble in this context means a unique environment that is unlike places on the outside of said bubble. It's not referring to a bubble like in the sense of a inflating market bubble.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Karrot_Kream 1y ago
Obviously I think the answer to this question depends so much on individual circumstances that all any of us can do is offer anecdotes. I think that while energy levels do decline as you get older, the degree of the decline depends largely on how much you stay in shape. My partner and I are very active and find ourselves only marginally less physically energetic in our 30s as our 20s. I've seen friends of ours with more sedentary lifestyles having a much sharper decline. If you're inclined to stay in shape then I don't think age makes as big of a difference (within reason.) But YMMV.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 I had my kids 25-35; all 5 are adults. We live together as is befitting a 4 income economy. > and if the kids goes to college Do you mean go away to college? Yeah. No. > may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Me and peers are all working grey. End of career happens with first major illness intersects with the lack of health insurance and we die. > Plus if your kids have kids If one of my a sons pairs off with someone and they both work, they'll still be 2 typical incomes short of self sustenance. BUT, if they got married and then married another couple, the 4 of them only have to find one more adult - the one who will parent during the work day. After the last child enters school, the core 4 can kick parent 5 to the curb. > Do not let fear of how much it will cost No fear. Just math. > or desire for more resources first But if they had more resources they might only need 3 or even 2 adults working full time to afford basic bills. > Do not let ... it ... stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well. Parents can (and do) parent while living in their car...
- graemep 1y ago
  SO what? That is well below retirement age and life expectancy. MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58, and I am a single parent. Baring accidents or the severely unexpected (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s) its not a problem.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    > That is well below retirement age and life expectancy. What is below RA/LE? My comment addressed common financial realities. It applied to every adult age, up to and including death. > MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58 okay. > and I am a single parent. You may be interested to know that parenting can be get much harder than that. ex: I would have loved my difficulty level to be dialed down to Single Parent. > Baring accidents or the severely unexpected I agree that some folks do experience year after year after year of luck. > (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s) I agree that not having life-changing advantage & luck is pretty dang common. > its not a problem. What's not a problem? Taken together, your comment seems to be lacking a subject. I did the best I could. If you could share which of my points you were responding to, that might help.
mrweasel 1y ago
> Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. Depending on the circumstances in a persons country, maybe getting children at a young age isn't that dumb. I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student, grandparents are younger and able to help more and you have more energy and can more easily deal with lose of sleep. As a bonus, when your kids move out, you're not even 40 year olds. The only real issue is: Have you meet the right partner yet?
- arkey 1y ago
  > I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student... Where... where do you live? I'm all for having kids as soon as possible, but I was barely able to provide for just myself during university.
  - mrweasel 1y ago
    I'm in Denmark. You get around $1100 per month from the government as a university student, you then get around the same amount per child (not sure if a couple get half of that each). Still if you're two students, with a child, that's at least $3300 a month. That's not a lot of money, but there are also government loans you can get, and again, free daycare and subsidies for housing. It's not a get rich scheme, but it's also only meant to be temporary i.e. until you finish your studies.
    - arkey 1y ago
      That's amazing. I'm in Spain, absolutely different landscape here. I guess your government is trying to boost both higher education and birth rates.
      - mrweasel 1y ago
Aeolun 1y ago
I concur. Kids would have been much better at 20 than at 30. I can barely keep up with what they want to do now. If you live in a decent country it’s not even that expensive. Most states really want people to have children, so the basics are often supported or free.
sim7c00 1y ago
most ppl in my region have kids 35+ in order to first find a place in life that can support children. i don't see any issues with that. having energy is subjective and does not really depend on being young or old. some old folks are full of energy and live really active lives. It depends on your state of mind and lifestyle more than age.
grumpymuppet 1y ago
We were 38 with our first. I strongly agree that is too late to have them, especially given the likelihood of birth defects. Thankfully, we avoided issues there. A few years in and I feel "back on my feet", but it was harder for being older.
MaxHoppersGhost 1y ago
I think having kids when you’re in your early 30s is the way to go but having kids at any age is great. I think waiting until later is a mistake because you want a full life with your kids and ideally you can bless your parents with grandkids (they most likely want one, even if they say they don’t). But not having kids because you “waited too long” is a bigger mistake. Kids take a lot of energy but they also give you a lot, no matter the age. We are biologically hardwired to rise to the challenge of having kids no matter the age.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Lifestyle is key here. An older friend conveyed to me pretty much the exact same thing you are, that he cannot imagine having kids at 40 because you will not be able to keep up with them energy wise. You get old and your body really starts to give in. Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change. Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.
- tsunamifury 1y ago
  This is ridiculous. I’m 40 and in moderately good physical condition (I can lift and run many miles). I am perfectly capable of keeping up with my kids. My 72 year old father who is also in good condition keeps up with my 3 year old son. The difference I see between a reasonably fit 40 year old and not is the massive gap.
- winter_blue 1y ago
  > Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change. > Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money. Yup, this is very much key.
- CPLX 1y ago
  My son was born when I was 45 and I absolutely could not be more happy about it. I am in way better shape than I was at 30, I finally started taking that seriously, and also I am way wiser, more patient, and have more money. So if you hear anyone telling you they can't imagine late fatherhood ignore them, they obviously aren't good at imagining things.
  - jajko 1y ago
    While generally true, you are not the only one aging around you, and some sickness/accident stuff can happen with higher probability as years add up. The chance you will need to take care of both your kids and your parents in your 50s is pretty high (not even going into you and your partner), while facing declining health yourself. Could be easily manageable, or not. Ask me in a decade. But one thing is darn true - if a good long term stable match is not there, no point pushing for kids. World really doesnt need more damaged folks struggling their whole lives to overcome shitty childhood. And thats fine, parenthood is not for everybody and there can be an amazing life to be had instead (and I mean it in best way possible, but that life shouod not be spent behind the desk and on the couch)
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
This is a very good comment. I had my first kid in my mid-20s and my next two in my late 30s. There are definitely pros and cons, but overall I'd recommend kids in mid- to late-20s. >However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. Yes! There is no perfect time to have kids, but there will definitely be a time when having kids isn't biologically likely anymore
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
there are also age correlated birth defects, the cause of which have not been adequately determined in all cases but the high correlation does suggest a relation.
Justsignedup 1y ago
I had a kid at 22, I am now 40 with a kid going to college. I can echo this exact sentiment. However at 22 I wasn't the experienced person I am today. Nor was I stable, nor could I jump on opportunities like my peers could. If having a child in your early 20s would mean not losing opportunities in progressing in a career, at least with enough free childcare and food to feed the children, people could be more inclined to have children while they get their life together. Our culture of moving away from home is also a big problem -- having 2 sets of grandparents helping raise a child REALLY helped me at my youth not miss out on youth and still raise my child. kids between 25-32 is something our society should aim to be as practical and pleasant as possible.
- specialist 1y ago
  Was also a young parent. Empathetic yes to all. Securing stable health insurance dictated most of my career decisions. I was captive to turrible gigs, had to pass on a lot of opportunities. Want to revitalize our society? #1 is Medicare for All. More startups, more risk taking & innovation, higher birth rate, etc. #2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality. #3 is housing. Again: Cheap, plentiful, good quality. Plus, rentals better suited for young families (eg more 2 & 3 bedroom units).
  - complianceowl 1y ago
    I think willing to take a cut in one's standard of living so that the mother stays at home and raises the children would revitalize society beyond any of the above-mentioned options.
    - specialist 1y ago
      Or... Raise wages while reducing housing and insurance costs so that a single wage earner home can support their family. What my grandpa and grandma used to call "the middle class".
      - complianceowl 1y ago
complianceowl 1y ago
As someone who is 34 with two kids (toddler and newborn), I completely agree with your comment. My wife and I had difficulty having kids, or we would've had them sooner, but I completely agree with having kids before 30. My energy is still solid, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't compare to energy in your 20s. People think too much about the financial aspect. You can continue building and growing financially even with kids, you just need to be smarter and more disciplined. A lot of people use the financial argument, but I think more and more, it is only a cope for not having had kinds sooner. All my kids will be in their 20s when I'm in my 50s; not bad, but having kids in your 20s is the way to go.
georgeecollins 1y ago
I think having kids before you are 30 is fine, but we had our second kid when my wife was 36 and it was also fine. I think when you get in your forties as a man or late thirties as a woman it can be tougher. Also, adopt. Before I was a parent I thought of a child as "mine" because of biology. Really you see that you shape people and form a connection with them because they are part of your family.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  > I think having kids before you are 30 is fine, but we had our second kid when my wife was 36 and it was also fine. Which is another important point: if you want multiple children you probably want to have your first earlier than you might otherwise.
emptysongglass 1y ago
> If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them I need to push back on this because no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out and assuming a partner of similar age, neither do they. It's only starting in your 30s where you start to understand what it is to be a responsible adult to yourself and to the world. So please, do not seriously consider having kids in your 20s, for all our sakes.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  > no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out Too strong. You're an adult who doesn't have their shit figured out. Some people never get it figured out, others take into their 30s, 40s or even 50s. And then in your 60s, you've got new shit to figure out.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    Isn’t your brain still forming until you’re like… 26? It’s probably more correct to say that 25 year olds are children in that case. Other ages are mostly arbitrary.
- NeutralCrane 1y ago
  This is a level of infantilization that I think becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don’t magically become adults, they learn to be adults based on the situations they are placed in. It seems to me like when you move the definition of “adulthood” back to age X, fewer people function like adults prior to age X.
southernplaces7 1y ago
You speak way off base. Many, possibly most people in their early 40s can have kids and still keep up with them well into their 50s. Not only is it easier than ever to pull this off for many modern reasons of health and lifestyle decisions, it's not even exceptionally hard unless you're unlucky with your health or do something to really fuck it up. Even decades ago, many many men at least were commonly fathering children in their 40s and even 50s, and rearing them. You write your comment about the maximum safe age for having children as if most people (at least in the advanced countries and moderately reasonable income brackets) were living the lives of 19th century industrial workers.
- bluGill 1y ago
  You can. However it gets more dificult

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

It's lead. Lead concentration in America "rapidly increased in the 1950s and then declined in the 1980s" [1]. There is a non-linear discontinuity among kids born in the mid 80s, with linear improvements through to those born in the late 2000s [2]. Arrest rates for violent crimes are highest from 15 to 29 years old (particularly 17 to 23-year olds) [3]. They're particularly low for adults after 50 years old. We're around 40 years from the last of the high-lead children. 17 years ago is the late 2000s. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618223002951 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10406... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7932 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7932 [3] https://kagi.com/assistant/d2c6fdd5-73dd-4952-ae40-1f36aef1e268 https://kagi.com/assistant/d2c6fdd5-73dd-4952-ae40-1f36aef1e...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
PartiallyTyped 1y ago
Can we blame lead for the US’ electoral landscape too?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Can we blame lead for the US’ electoral landscape too? More of a pet theory, but voters born between 1950 and 1980, boomers and Gen X, have had a well-documented set of policy preferences.
  - ivape 1y ago
    What if I told you voters born between nnnn-yyyy had a set of policy preferences?
    - kayodelycaon 1y ago
      There’s supposedly a cycle of attitude between generations. If your parents are X, you want to be Y. If your parents are Y, you want to be Z. If your parents are Z, you want to be X

spinner34f 1y ago

The flip-side of an aging society with declining fertility is that older people, with fewer children are likely to be less sympathetic to children, and you could see the incarceration rates increase, or remain steady, as less severe infractions are punished more harshly. We recently saw this play out in the Queensland, Australia, state election where the opposition party, which was pretty much out of ideas, ran a scare campaign about youth crime in regional areas. Neighbourhood Facebook Groups where CCTV footage of "suspicious youth" are a mainstay and an aging population did the rest of the job and they won the election and passed "adult time for adult crime" laws: whether you agree with these or not, "adult time" in Australia means that the youth incarcerated will be adults in their 20s and 30s when they get out. The Australian state of New South Wales routinely strip-searches young children, but again, there isn't much outcry. It will be interesting to see how this plays out elsewhere. The worst case scenario is that kids will be politically scapegoated ("why should childless and aging taxpayers fund education?"), and it leads to a further decline in fertility rates.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
Australia has had pretty terrible “jail children like adults” opinions for a long time. Politics in Melbourne constantly turns on fears of youth [black immigrant] crime waves that are making people afraid to leave the house. https://raisetheage.org.au/ https://raisetheage.org.au/
- Nursie 1y ago
  Queensland seems to be making a lot of noise about that at the moment as well. Seems to be this weird reasoning (and I know it has cropped up in the US too) that - if they did an 'adult' crime they should be tried as an adult. It totally ignores what we know about developing brains - they are not fully developed, they don't consider consequences the same way as older people. That's not to say they should be allowed to 'get away with it', but we need to take into account that it's not really the same thing as adults doing it.
  - worthless-trash 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

frollogaston 1y ago

But it's not uniform. In the span of ~60 years, the average birth rate doesn't matter as much as the distribution and how much the children model their parents. Small example (multiply all numbers by 1M), average birth rate of 1.5 can be a group of 4 people where one had 0 children, one had 1, one had 2, one had 3. If each child has as many children as its parents, next generation, 0 have 0 children, 1 has 1, 2 have 2, 3 have 3, for a new average of 2.33. If you take a higher starting average but a tight spread [2, 2, 2, 2], the next average is only 2. Or if you have [0, 1, 2, 3] but kids model society instead of parents, you get 1.5 again. Of course children didn't model their parents the past couple of generations, but times may be changing.

naasking 1y ago

> All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out. Or the less popular more controversial hypothesis: the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and more issues with mental health, and since all qualities are at least partly heritable... Surprisingly, the fertility rate among the affluent does not appear to be nearly as impacted.

andsoitis 1y ago
> the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and more issues with mental health, and since all qualities are at least partly heritable... Surprisingly, the fertility rate among the affluent does not appear to be nearly as impacted. Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations. This pattern is observed both at the national level, with poorer countries generally having higher fertility rates than wealthier ones, and at the individual level, with poorer families tending to have more children than wealthier families. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link-fertility-income https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link...
- naasking 1y ago
  > Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations. Yes, but they were even higher in the past. Fertility has declined among the poorer classes much more than among higher income classes, probably due to the availability of contraceptives and abortion: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs5lgb_bIAAYoo1?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs5lgb_bIAAYoo1?format=jpg

dcow 1y ago

We may have swung the pendulum a little too far towards deliberate, though. The birthrate right now is below replacement rate, meaning that if we keep going like this (even if the birthrate doesn't keep trending down and holds steady) that society will die off. We need to figure out how to build an economy and society that can facilitate deliberate responsible parentage younger and more often. Luckily we have generations to solve the problem, but it’s there looming.

TrueTom 1y ago
This is not going to happen when you can just import people from other countries.
- ipdashc 1y ago
  ... until, obviously, those countries' populations start declining as well?
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  Every country on earth is trending downwards. A lot of currently immigrant-exporting countries (e.g. Vietnam, India, Mexico) have sub-replacement levels of birth. They're going to have absolutely massive problems in a few decades when a lot of their youth have left and they're stuck with an inverted population pyramid. There's a tendency for people in developed (particularly western) countries to feel entitled to immigrants. It's weird to think you'll not only have people changing your diapers when you're 90, but that your country should actively bring in people and deprive poorer countries of similar care, then leave those poor working class immigrants to fend for themselves once they're old. It's the same mindset that drove society since the 1950s: it makes my life convenient, who cares if it makes life harder for people far from me or after I'm dead? And now we're all living with the accumulated consequences of all that (depleted ozone, climate change, ocean acidification, microplastics, oceans stripped of life, teflon pollution, deforestation, CO2 rising rapidly). The world needs better solutions.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > This is not going to happen when you can just import people from other countries. That's basically the same solution as dumping toxic waste overseas: you're just shifting the problem (depopulation) to someplace poorer and probably less able to deal with it. Birthrates are declining everywhere, and the current global fertility rate is at replacement (so don't expect it to stay that high). In the future, there's going to be no magical place from which you can "import" all the people you need, because you chose not to make them yourself.

mc32 1y ago

We still need to improve the numbers regarding single (&absent) parent households.

buckle8017 1y ago

The entire premise of the article is that fewer crimes are being committed by youth because arrests are down. That's wrong, actually what's happening is police have just given up on arresting kids who will be released.

worldsayshi 1y ago

You're half implying this but I wonder if the change in youth culture comes from the simple ratio of adults vs kids in the social circle around each kid. Youth culture needs a lot of kids around to get amplified. When most of the people around you are adult you may tend to adopt the culture of the adult world rather than creating your own.

_zagj 1y ago

Or maybe it's just today's youth are too neurotic, anti-social, and screen-addicted to go out into the real world and misbehave? They're also having less sex, and drinking less as well. Also consider that it's much harder to get away with crimes today than it was decades ago, and penalties for getting caught are often more severe.

zellyn 1y ago

If you do decide to wait longer, be aware that there are hilarious differences geographically. When we had our first kid in SF, the other dads pushing swings were around the same age as me (fortyish). Moving back to Georgia… oh my god, the parents of kids my second kid’s age were babies! (There are “graybeard dad” Facebook groups etc., but the average vibe is way different)

sixothree 1y ago
Crime rates in Georgia are higher. So there's that.
- NeutralCrane 1y ago
  On the flip side the average age of parents in Utah is extremely low and the crime rate is also below average. So it may be more nuanced than you would think.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    confounding factor: Mormons
meindnoch 1y ago
>the parents of kids my second kid’s age were babies Babies can have kids?
- bombcar 1y ago
  A parent who’s forty with a newborn will feel that the 20-year old with a newborn is “babies havin’ babies” as Strong bad would say.
  - Melatonic 1y ago
    Strong Bad - now thats a throwback!
  - deleted 1y ago

arresin 1y ago

With this and robotics advancement maybe everything could work out.