8 ms·

Lots of hot takes here in the comments. I think that reading the paper is more informative than just reading these comments (something I am often guilty of). M

Lots of hot takes here in the comments. I think that reading the paper is more informative than just reading these comments (something I am often guilty of). My thoughts on the paper: These are economists, not demographers or social workers. Their tools are crude for this task and they acknowledge that many times in the article. Honestly, the abstract is well written and covers a lot of what other HNers are saying here. But I'll just quote it again anyways: "We review existing research and conclude that period-based explanations focused on short-term changes in income or prices cannot explain the widespread decline. Instead, the evidence points to a broad reordering of adult priorities with parenthood occupying a diminished role. We refer to this phenomenon as “shifting priorities” and propose that it likely reflects a complex mix of changing norms, evolving economic opportunities and constraints, and broader social and cultural forces. We review emerging evidence on all these factors. We conclude the paper with suggestions for future research and a brief discussion of policy implications." These policy implications are at the very end of the paper and don't really amount to much: "That said, we do have a better understanding of the kinds of policies that could make a difference. Policies that encourage births today may simply lead to a retiming of births, resulting in a short-term increase in births but no lasting effect on population trends. To be effective at boosting completed fertility, policies must influence the decisions women make early in their reproductive lives. Interventions targeting women well into their childbearing years are less likely to have large effects, as many life choices will have already been made. This may explain why past empirical studies often fail to find large effects of pro-natalist policies. Our review of the evidence also suggests that incremental policy changes or interventions are unlikely to have sizable effects, and boosting fertility will likely require much larger changes that alter the lifetime calculation to have and raise a child or multiple children given prevailing options, constraints, and social norms. " What I think this paper adds to the pro-natalist discussion is that, yes, this is a really hard question with no easy answers or fixes. If it is a recipe that we must follow to get a higher birthrate, then it is not stir-fry but rather lobster thermidor. The one thing that we can say is that delaying childbirth is likely to be bad for fertility. But there are little resources for how to address that. Good paper overall and well worth the read if you are into this pro-natalist stuff. Not a lot of new data, but a great summary of the economist viewpoint of the problem and it's tenacity.

tuatoru 1y ago
> To be effective at boosting completed fertility, policies must influence the decisions women make early in their reproductive lives. Interventions targeting women well into their childbearing years are less likely to have large effects, as many life choices will have already been made. That implies offering child subsidies only to people in their twenties. Imagine the outrage.
- Balgair 1y ago
  In some of the pro-natal online discourse there is an idea to mortgage the future earnings of children against current childless people. I think I have that right but, honestly, it's a bit confusing of an idea to me. I think these people are saying that we should get banks to give people money now to have kids, contingent upon the banks getting a percentage of the earnings of any resultant children. Like, such ideas are wildly crazy, clearly. But that seems to be where the discourse is right now in the pro-natalism sphere. They're looking for just about anything to get fertility rates to change. I've seen ideas float around about Mongolia and how they give mothers special parking permits and feathered caps (?) and how that's responsible for their birthrate anomalies. The whole scene is just deliciously strange in the way that 1990's UFO boards were too. What seems to me to be happening is that fertility in humans has a pretty steep fall off. We've attacked some of that with technology like IVF. But it's still very hard to have a healthy baby at higher ages. Like, miscarriages are really traumatic and you're going to get a bigger chance at them as you try when you're older. So it's not just biochem, it's mental too. However, at the same time, we've increased the life expectancy by a lot, and we're set to do so even more this century. Now, a bit of a jag here. There's this thing called the marriage problem in mathematics. You can only court serially and the number of courtiers is fixed and you can't go back and court people again. So, how do you choose to stop and who with? You might have passed by the best spouse and then be left with a dud. The mathematically best solution is to court the first 37.8% of the courtiers and then marry the next person that beats the ones you've courted. (Look, I know I'm butchering this). Anyway, my point is that as life expectancy is growing, you get to this point where when it comes to spouses and jobs and cities and all the big stuff in life, that 38.7% of the time you've got to 'calibrate' yourself, that point goes past your fertility window. People are trying to figure themselves out, and since that takes so long now, that point of being mentally 'settled' is past when you can have kids easily. I'm not really sure we can fix that either. Family is central to being human, we're a social animal. So I think technology is really the only key here.

tuatoru 1y ago

> To be effective at boosting completed fertility, policies must influence the decisions women make early in their reproductive lives. Interventions targeting women well into their childbearing years are less likely to have large effects, as many life choices will have already been made. That implies offering child subsidies only to people in their twenties. Imagine the outrage.

Balgair 1y ago
In some of the pro-natal online discourse there is an idea to mortgage the future earnings of children against current childless people. I think I have that right but, honestly, it's a bit confusing of an idea to me. I think these people are saying that we should get banks to give people money now to have kids, contingent upon the banks getting a percentage of the earnings of any resultant children. Like, such ideas are wildly crazy, clearly. But that seems to be where the discourse is right now in the pro-natalism sphere. They're looking for just about anything to get fertility rates to change. I've seen ideas float around about Mongolia and how they give mothers special parking permits and feathered caps (?) and how that's responsible for their birthrate anomalies. The whole scene is just deliciously strange in the way that 1990's UFO boards were too. What seems to me to be happening is that fertility in humans has a pretty steep fall off. We've attacked some of that with technology like IVF. But it's still very hard to have a healthy baby at higher ages. Like, miscarriages are really traumatic and you're going to get a bigger chance at them as you try when you're older. So it's not just biochem, it's mental too. However, at the same time, we've increased the life expectancy by a lot, and we're set to do so even more this century. Now, a bit of a jag here. There's this thing called the marriage problem in mathematics. You can only court serially and the number of courtiers is fixed and you can't go back and court people again. So, how do you choose to stop and who with? You might have passed by the best spouse and then be left with a dud. The mathematically best solution is to court the first 37.8% of the courtiers and then marry the next person that beats the ones you've courted. (Look, I know I'm butchering this). Anyway, my point is that as life expectancy is growing, you get to this point where when it comes to spouses and jobs and cities and all the big stuff in life, that 38.7% of the time you've got to 'calibrate' yourself, that point goes past your fertility window. People are trying to figure themselves out, and since that takes so long now, that point of being mentally 'settled' is past when you can have kids easily. I'm not really sure we can fix that either. Family is central to being human, we're a social animal. So I think technology is really the only key here.