[NYT] The Feminist Case for Spending Billions to Boost the Birthrate

I we zoom out, it's nature at work. Biological population growth is sigmoidal.

We are thinking and social animals and have learned to control our reproductive process, so we aren't going to just breed until we run out of resources. At some point as resources become scarce, but not completely gone, we suffer psychologically, check out, and stop reproducing. This is what's happening. Even rats exhibit this behavior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink.

This is just nature finding it's equilibrium. This framing of the problem is backwards. There is nothing wrong with our population finding an equilibrium. In fact, it's a good thing, resources are not unlimited. This is a capitalism problem, which needs unlimited growth. This whole article about costs, consumption, and incentives misses the entire cause of the problem (population growth is over and not coming back). We need to come up with a system which doesn't worship growth and manages population and resources in equilibrium. Capitalism, by it's very nature, can't solve this problem.

 

Population density

 

The difference between us and the rest of the animals is that we are intelligent enough to intentionally change the natural world to increase its carrying capacity for humans.

The downtrend in births is not "finding equilibrium" as much as it is a signal of a societal dysfunction.

My theory is that the sickness is an economic one stemming from our use of a centrally controlled monetary system. The lack of a sound asset at the core of the economy means we are living in and by the whims of a system run by a handful of very fallible humans.

It's not a 'capitalism problem', it's a 'socialism problem'. Central control (the essence of "socialism") of money leads us down this inevitable path to ruin, just as has happened numerous times throughout recorded history. It's the primary cause for the economic instability and inequality we see now, which have marked impacts on human's desire and willingness to form families and reproduce.

There is nothing to suggest that we've simply hit our quota on humans and we're just naturally tapping the brakes. Especially in Western democracies, and very especially in the USA. Otherwise when do the countries that actually do have carrying capacity problems start slowing down?

 

Okay so the last data I remember looking at ended at an income bracket of 200k a year that showed a consistent decline in fertility rate

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

But this is lumping in those making 200k with those making more, if you parse it out greater there does appear to be some (although seemingly very limited) data to support a potential U curve, but the income required (or wealth percentile) is substantial from what I can see at first glance.

Here's an article with your argument but I have to look at it closer and it's sources a bit later. The article also heavily emphasizes that culture is the key.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-mon...e-positive-link-between-income-and-fertility-

I'll say, my mother has been a nannie for multiple rich families and I don't think the whole have a staff of 5 to raise your kids and clean your house thing is going to be a viable option nationally.

Nah, Maine/VT/Oregon have some of the lowest fertility rates and population densities. Wyoming doesn't have a particularly high fertility rate.

 

I'm not surprised to see that given the lowerbound on it is 200K.

That's going to mix in your neighborhood dentist or attorney with the mil & billionaires.

Those kind of people can have literally dozens of children (as early as they want in life) and not bat an eyelash.

Meanwhile the white collar pros still work 40+ hours a week (often much more) and are usually not on solid footing until far later in life.

 

Doesn’t that make the U curve pretty irrelevant if it’s not something that’s obtainable for 98% of the population?

You didn’t have to be in the top 2-5% to feel like you could have kids in the 50s, clearly it’s been a cultural shift

 

IMO culture is a lagging indicator not a leading one.

The culture didn't start changing about these things until after the money system did.

 

Very interesting discussion, y'all.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that cost is the number one factor in my family not having more kids. We live just outside DC and the cost of everything - daycare, housing, utilities, saving for ourselves, saving for their college - makes it almost unimaginable that we could have more children.

 

We are also intelligent enough to avoid births.

Yes, the downtrend is social dysfunction. But I think that dysfunction is due to overcrowding and limited resources. We choose not to bring children into a world where we live on top of each other and are constantly stressed about affording food, health and shelter.

I'm not sure what to say to this. It seems very crypto-bro wild ass theory. You think a decentralized monetary system will solve economic inequality which will lead to increase fertility rates? That's two giant assumptions.

We have very much decided to hit the breaks. Western Europe, USA, Southeast Asia - countries that have urbanized, have declining birthrates. This doesn't mean that there aren't vast swaths of low density areas in these countries. We don't like living in gilded cages.

Africa doesn't at all have a carrying capacity problem. The whole of Africa has less population than China. The countries in Africa with the highest population are seeing fertility rates drop significantly.

Very simply we see agrarian societies -> high fertility, urban societies -> low fertility.

 

It's pretty clear the more urban states have a lower fertility rate than the more rural states.

 

Yeah there's a slight relation (about 5-10% I think), I'm just a skeptical of it being more of a correlation than causation. It's odd that Vermont has the highest percentage of its population living in a rural setting AND the lowest fertility rate in the country. It's odd that Montana is more rural than South Dakota with a much different fertility rate. It's odd that New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country yet has the 18th highest fertility

 

My DC area monthly childcare bill is as much as my mortgage.

It's insane.

 

The cost of living definitely has its impact. Both our kids were out of college and in successful careers years ago, but we put them through daycare. It was also expensive back then, but I don’t doubt it’s more expensive now.

We’re visiting our daughter in Seattle, recently moved here from Austin, partly to escape the ever increasing far-right tilt our state government has taken, and partly because of the far superior mass transit - she doesn’t drive, lol. After a few days enjoying this lovely city, I can attest that the cost of living is significantly higher than Austin’s. I’m not surprised they have a low birth rate. Fortunately, she can afford it.

 

No kidding...Seattle/Vancouver area is expensive as shti

 

It’s definitely economically driven. Women are most fertile in their teens and early 20s, but given the high COL that now requires both adults to work to afford, women are going to college instead of getting married right out of High School.

If this was the 1950s where a union factory job could buy a house, car, vacation, all expenses, then yeah you’d see women opt to stay home and have kids.

By now every generation has heard how you’ll ruin your life having kids too young and so they’ve stopped.

 

This was a really good discussion on the economics of having children.

That being said it may be a little less complicated. Birth rates go down as education levels go up.

While men have stalled, women are still trending up in education