117

Fertility rate drops to new record low: CDC (thehill.com)

submitted 3 days ago by TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com to c/science@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 points 2 days ago

Fertility rates have been falling across the world since the baby boom that followed WW2 in line with greater female education and labour market participation. Also people from poorer and less educated background in wealthy countries are the people who have the highest fertility rates.

[-] sneakypersimmon@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

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

[-] sneakypersimmon@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

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.