You must log in or # to comment.
People are not having kids. They could but are choosing not too.
There’s always 2 people when bad times are happening: people who decide not to have kids and then those that for some reason still decide to have kids despite bad current events.
“Fertility rate drops” suggests that people are becoming less fertile.
The article itself says that people. are taking measures to have fewer children due to cost, the economy, the political landscape, etc.
Infertility is not the same as choosing not to have children.
“Polling in recent years has indicated that the number of adults who never want to have children has grown, and that men and women plan to have fewer children than previous generations.”
The article is not talking about infertility - it’s talking about fertility rate which are different thing.
The total fertility rate (TFR) of a population is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime, if they were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through their lifetime, and they were to live from birth until the end of their reproductive life.
I agree and it’s going to be a common trend when capitalism makes it impossible to take care of children when cost of living rises and wages stay the exact same.
That’s why they’re trying to criminalize abortion and reduce access to birth control.
Yep. Need a fresh supply of peasants to work to death while the Epstein class sips their champagne on yachts. Not to mention children will keep the poor poor and unable to protest less they risk their jobs and healthcare.
Incredibly confusingly written article. The article really tries not to get the point across clearly. Instead of including like a single diagram that actually shows numbers and a curve, they choose to beat around the bush by using words like “less”, “fewer”, etc. which is really hard to estimate the effect size. There was no serious attempt to represent data proportionally and to actually inform the reader. It feels like an emotionally manipulative hit piece to reach out to all the people who might be affected by this.
Man, they are gonna have to start actually paying the wage slaves if they want them to make more wage slaves.
That’s not going to happen on its own. They’d rather force women to bear children through criminalizing miscarriages and abortions and reducing access to birth control.
Women with money have more options and choose to have fewer children.
They’ll have to reduce access to education too
Oh they’ve been pushing for that in the US for sure. What do you think abstinence only education is for?
More teen pregnancies.
Weird how people keep saying things like this despite the clear inverse relationship between income and fertility.
Women with higher income have more options for sure.
Saying that “people need to get paid higher wages to be able to afford having children” is obviously propaganda in an attempt to motivate rich people to pay poor people more money. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do that; in fact they should; but the fertility rate has nothing to do with it.
There are worldwide studies that families with less money typically have more children, but it’s very important to note that this is only correlation, not causation. In other words, giving people more money does probably not (i believe) cause them to have fewer children. Rather, i think it’s the other way around: Having more children leads to poverty as children are really expensive.
Also i want to point out that the story is really really more complicated than that. I.e. you see a lot of people wanting to have children, but not doing it because they’re afraid that the cost of living will be significantly more expensive in the future. Yes, you read this correctly. It’s not about the cost of living today, it’s about the cost of living in the future. Consider this: Children (if treated properly) live around 80 years, and during that whole time they should be fed and housed. That costs money. If housing becomes significantly more expensive in 20 years, it will be very difficult to house them. You should think about this today, not in 20 years. The fear of future rising cost of living is a reason why lots of people are deciding against having children today.
Also there are many more things that i want to say about this, such as that there is a very directed campaign on social media today to disincentivise leftist people from flirting with other people today, which effectively leads leftist people to be less in romantic relationships, more lonely, less connected, less organized, also less pregnant. This obviously hinders them from organizing properly, which is a top-down attempt to smash rebellions before they happen. This is a scheme that is highly effective of corrupting society, especially leftist people as conservatives typically don’t listen to social media and its messaging, especially when it comes to not flirting with other people (sexual harassment) and such.
Incomes for the bottom 99% have stagnated over the last 30 years, so how do you reconcile that with this reported drop in fertility? I don’t think it’s weird that people see a causal relationship where one obviously exists. I think that the inverse relationship that you’re talking about is only one factor in influencing fertility rates, and you’re conflating incomes with affordability.
The decreasing relationship between the two variables demonstrates the connection between fertility choices and economic considerations. In general, poor countries tend to have higher levels of fertility than rich countries.
In particular, women tend to give birth to no fewer than three children in countries where GDP per capita is below $1,000 per year. In countries where GDP per capita is above $10,000 per year, women tend to give birth to no more than two children.
This decreasing relationship between fertility and income is well known to economists and demographers alike. In addition, it holds true over time: Rich countries, such as the U.S., have experienced a remarkable decline in their fertility rate as they became rich. Also, the relationship holds at the individual level, as rich families tend to have fewer children than poor families.
This statement is from the same place as the graph pictured above.
Right, but the US - with the exception of the 1% - is not becoming more rich.
I understand the generalization of GDP/capita going up = lower fertility. It does appear to hold true from a global perspective. That’s a country level statistic though, which does not reflect income inequality within a country. Assuming that the situation is as simple as that is foolish at best and does not adequately explain collapsing fertility rates in poorer demographics.
The Great Recession contributed to the decline in the early part of this period, but we are unable to identify any other economic, policy, or social factor that has changed since 2007 that is responsible for much of the decline beyond that. Mechanically, the falling birth rate can be attributed to changes in birth patterns across recent cohorts of women moving through childbearing age. We conjecture that the “shifting priorities” of more recent cohorts, reflecting changes in preferences for having children, aspirations for life, and parenting norms, may be responsible.
The Puzzle of Falling US Birth Rates since the Great Recession - American Economic Association https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.36.1.151
Assuming that the situation is as simple as that is foolish at best and does not adequately explain collapsing fertility rates in poorer demographics.
I agree that it would be silly to assume that the only correlation with fertility rates is GDP. There’s obviously going to be many factors that affect fertility and birth rates.
There’s a lot of people that assume that the birth rates will go up with income which isn’t true at all. That was what my commentary was pointed at more than anything.
I see, I thought you were saying that was the only factor. 👍
Just providing more info to go along with the graph :)
Thanks for not being an ass about it lol
It’s not actually a clear inverse relationship on the individual level, even if the data shows a correlation at the national level.
There are a few things happening that complicate the analysis at the individual level, too:
- Wealth/income are correlated with age, and 40 year olds tend to have both higher incomes and lower fertility rates than 25 year olds.
- Wealth also correlates with race, for better or for worse, and there have always been persistent differences in birth rates by race.
- The sample sizes aren’t big enough to show whether the very rich (95th+ percentile) actually reverse the trend, to where being richer is correlated with higher birth rates, where the curve ticks back upward at very high incomes.
- The correlation is actually the other direction when looking at the individual incomes in certain countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway), and the effect is stronger when looking at men and their incomes.
Other country level data also suggest that there are big cultural factors in birth rates as well.
All in all, the relationship between income and fertility is complicated, with lots of other factors at play.
also this is global, so I thought there was a strong correlation between agrarian societies, having low or depressed wages, and having lots of kids to help with the farm labor, or because there isn’t much else to do for fun.
This could be a regressive imperialist view, idk, but its what I was always told about the correlation between wages and children, especially on a global scale - would be interested to see this same chart for singular countries, the USA for example.
Other commenter pointed out that typically higher incomes generally come with rights for child bearers… So that also could have something to do with it too.
Anecdotal, but partner and I have put off having children multiple times due to affordability, IE who can take that much time off work and still pay food/rent costs?
As a parent, most of the worry is just unreasonable fear. If you want kids have them. Sure they are expensive, but they will take so much time you won’t be able to do a lot of the other things you were spending money on before. I find it well worth the costs (this is of course a matter of opinion)
I’m only half of the decision tree, but I really appreciate your kind words of encouragement :) we’re trying, but cautiously.
To anyone trying - if you plan to use a daycare, get on their enrollment wait lists now. Those things are multiple years long! (In the US, at least)
I’ll add a caveat that one should take a look at daycare costs and such in their area first. There is a real financial setback that having kids can bring that shouldn’t be ignored if possible. There’s only so much money that cancelling going to concerts and brunch can offset things like daycare.
I say this as a parent as well.
It seems pretty directly linked with the availability of choices for women.
Anecdotal, but partner and I have put off having children multiple times due to affordability, IE who can take that much time off work and still pay food/rent costs?
You are lucky enough to have the choice to put off having children.
yeah definitely a meeting point of factors.
deleted by creator
Thanks to AI they won’t need as many wage slaves. The future looks bright!
Now what to do about all these excess people?
Most of it comes from declines in teen pregnancy. I see that as a win.
Also, in the 2007-2025 time span where fertility dropped 23%, the US still managed to add 41 million people to its population.