I'm not sure I buy the article. Because we aren't seeing the same long term procreative behaviors among the upper middle class on up and the lower middle class on down while both have experienced availability of the pill. I'd attribute the shifts more to a the falloff in male wages. During times of economic crisis humans drop their procreation. That correlates strongly with late marriage and less marriage:
So low wages for workers -> lack of desire to procreate -> late marriage and less marriage.
But people like the Austin institute don't want to talk about the economics, because that's something that's easy as a society to change; we just change tax policy and this can be reversed. Rather they want to guilt women into having less sex.
"During times of economic crisis humans drop their procreation."
I do not agree with this. Right now we often see women turn themselves into baby factories in the poorer realms. Multiple babies, multiple fathers... the whole mess.
And this isn't new - in less technologically advanced societies (ie, lower economics), having a lot of babies was the norm. Granted, many of them died, but women had many more.
-- I do not agree with this. Right now we often see women turn themselves into baby factories in the poorer realms. Multiple babies, multiple fathers... the whole mess.
Look at fertility rates among the poor and lower middle class they are way down. You don't see women turning themselves into baby factories in substantial numbers. Mostly they have 1 or 2 children early. If 2% of women are having 6 kids that does very little to aggregate fertility.
-- And this isn't new - in less technologically advanced societies (ie, lower economics), having a lot of babies was the norm
Absolutely true. But in poor agricultural economies fertility often boosted economic status while in our society it harms it. If having kids were profitable; say for example the government provided a $35k / yr / child subsidy then you'd see a much much higher level of fertility.
5 comments
So low wages for workers -> lack of desire to procreate -> late marriage and less marriage.
But people like the Austin institute don't want to talk about the economics, because that's something that's easy as a society to change; we just change tax policy and this can be reversed. Rather they want to guilt women into having less sex.
I do not agree with this. Right now we often see women turn themselves into baby factories in the poorer realms. Multiple babies, multiple fathers... the whole mess.
And this isn't new - in less technologically advanced societies (ie, lower economics), having a lot of babies was the norm. Granted, many of them died, but women had many more.
-- I do not agree with this. Right now we often see women turn themselves into baby factories in the poorer realms. Multiple babies, multiple fathers... the whole mess.
Look at fertility rates among the poor and lower middle class they are way down. You don't see women turning themselves into baby factories in substantial numbers. Mostly they have 1 or 2 children early. If 2% of women are having 6 kids that does very little to aggregate fertility.
-- And this isn't new - in less technologically advanced societies (ie, lower economics), having a lot of babies was the norm
Absolutely true. But in poor agricultural economies fertility often boosted economic status while in our society it harms it. If having kids were profitable; say for example the government provided a $35k / yr / child subsidy then you'd see a much much higher level of fertility.