A pattern I've noticed is that educated people don't have lots of kids unless they live in a big house. At all of the corporate jobs I've worked, the higher ranking management/directors (people who make 150k+) often always lived in a McMansion and had 3-5 kids by the time their 40s, and then there'd be a few odd ones that are unmarried/no kids.
When I was in corporate consulting, the trend I noticed was that managers and above who made a lot and had a stay at home spouse would often have 3-5 kids. If thier spouse worked it was 1-2. And if they both worked "tough" jobs it was 0-1
Houses in America have become 2.5x bigger since the 1950s. Birth rates are way down.
It’s probably the other way around, people are having kids so they want a bigger house
Isn't it the other way around? People can afford to have more kids and therefore buy a bigger house?
I think Asian countries clearly made a mistake in only building apartments in their urbanization process.
Or maybe educated people that want kids buy big houses? Why would the causality go the other way?
How was China having that 2.35 birth rate with the one child policy?
The one child policy did not apply to everyone, certain groups or categories of people were exempt. Also other couples just broke the law and accepted the penalties/hid the kids.
Minorities, including Uighurs, were exempt. But they’ve now gone in the complete opposite direction and are trying to reduce the Uighur population through cultural genocide and coercive sterilisation, while actively promoting more childbirth by the Han majority.
Literally anyone and everyone that birthed a girl the first time had another child to make a son. This caused millions of phantom girls to be borned that were never registered for a long time.
Since in most Asian countries, having a son is not only about passing off your family name but also a retirement policy and next head of household.
If your first child was female you could have another, also I don’t think it applied in rural areas(where a lot of chinas population lived at the time)
As people urbanize, children go from being an asset (free labor on the farm), to a liability (expensive child care).
At some point we will either hit equilibrium at a lower population level, or, we will need to offer serious stimulus to get people to have babies, IMO.
Malthus’s theory seems more and more laughable as the years go by.
Pension schemes are an enormous reason too. Birth rates can remain high despite urbanization in countries without pension schemes, because the kids are your pension fund.
But without that, and with child labour laws, they're a pure liability.
I have to admit, these kinds of conversations make me nervous. I get the impression, even if it's stated subtly that many men think women should be still in the home, give up their jobs or career, risk total financial dependence, risk physical problems etc, because that's the most convenient to them. Of course, increasing your family is easy if a woman is at home to do all the work and bears all the financial risk if the marriage goes south.
These conversations never wonder how they could make the lives of mothers better or if they do, it's only to dismiss it (it doesn't work in Sweden!). The more nervous women get of their rights, the less inclined they will be to bring a child, especially a girl, into the world. It's been personally disappointing to me to see feminism cross into anti-natalism sometimes but I guess that's why.
We do potential studies to see how people react to energy, how we can get them to use less, what works? Why not do a potential study to see how we can encourage more kids, what works. The problem is that no country believes that this is worth investing that much in. They still expect to see results for little or nothing.
I don't think it has anything to do specifically with men or women, but to raise kids (or at least, to raise them at a sustainable level where people would opt to have them) you need either one partner with a part-time job or no job at all, or two partners with a somewhat flexible job with good WLB. Countries like Sweden and France manage to have high fertility rates by developed country standards because they as a society tend to work fewer hours. Developed countries in east asia have very low fertility rates because work hours are awful for almost all jobs.
Knowing the Japanese, they'd sooner allow their society to be replaced by robots than immigrants.
The issue, at least in most parts of europe, is that the immigration narrative was stolen by the populist parties. So for decades even the established parties didnt have the balls the properly explain that we need immigration in the long run. Now it’s getting too late and worse lower income groups still think they are out to steal their jobs (and houses).
100 years from now the entire world is going to be scrambling for African immigrants as the last place on earth to have above replacement fertility rates
Based on 2020 World Bank data, China actually has a higher total fertility rate than the US at 1.7 vs the the US’s 1.64.
Always thought that chinas demographic issues were extremely overstated a high legacy of birth rates from the 90s a relatively low life expectancy they’ll be better off than many western countries. Their issues will surface 10 to 15 years after the west.
lets just accept that it is here to stay
That implies we're gonna take measures to prepare for it, right?
We're not just gonna watch it happen while doing nothing and then act surprised when the economic (and resulting political) fallout lands where it may, unmitigated... right?
Fertility goes up again for incomes of 400k or more and is very high for a million or more.
Wealthy people have a ton of children, it’s middle and upper middle class people who are not having any
France baisé oui 🇫🇷😎💪
Fr France has both positive immigration and population growth trends, keep this up and we'll have 2.0 per woman soon.
Un jour, le diagonale du vide sera rempli!
When your región of the world has japan as the high point for fertility rates then you have a problem
At least for the East Asian countries, the economic prospects they have are quite good. Plenty of countries are a lot worse economically with similar poor demographics, which will only increase the difficulty in the difficult path of becoming developed.
The end of world will go with a whisper not a bang….
People assume this will stabilize, but it seems to be accelerating. In an old, aging country, it becomes progressively more expensive to raise a child, as more of your resources need to go towards supporting non-working elders. This could be a death spiral.
Imagine thinking you know what the optimal population of the world is.
Are Koreans just going to disappear? Also HK is even worse because emigration rates of young people are at record high.
HK is getting filled with mainlanders from all provinces of china.
Honest question: As long as production and growth continues, do we really care about birth rates?
advisors to Governor Polis
online now