I wonder what role increasing standards of living driving up our standards plays. Since basic biological needs are met people worry about cognitive needs, which generally can’t be met in the real world. So maybe people figure with all the suffering kids will endure it is best not to have any. That could be a small subset of people who don’t have kids.
In East Asia. The tfr is only about 1.2. Eastern Europe is no better. I wonder what role low quality of life plays.
It’s due to smoking and tight pants.
The 2009 Nature paper is really informative and a good read here. Basically, we used to think that the prosperity-fertility relationship was a monotonic decline, but it really isn’t. Prosperity (or more accurately, education/development: some poor but educated countries like Vietnam have quite low fertility) contributes to lower fertility up to a certain point, but above that point, increasing development contributes to higher fertility. The trough of low fertility is reached around the development level of South Korea and Southern European countries.
In other words, your guess is probably correct.
Probably true…
As a guess (and this could be wrong) I’d assume these are the main reasons people stop having kids in wealthy countries:
I can’t find the nature paper, is that linked on this thread?
Also, birth rates are falling all over the planet, including third world countries. Latin America, North Africa, India, all over Asia, birth rates are falling. The idea that Mexicans and Brazilians and Indians are having 8 kids while Americans and Germans are having 2 is false. Lots of third world countries have birth rates comparable to or even below rates in the US and Europe.
True. Quite a few people argue that it’s linked to increased female education:
“Higher levels of education, particularly among girls, had a strong correlation to declining fertility and better development outcomes, delegates and experts said today as the Commission on Population and Development continued its forty-fourth session.”
Why in your OP then are you so disturbed by Muslim immigrants having lots of kids? Aren’t they basically doing good, from your POV?
Yes but east asian nations and eastern european nations all congregate at the bottom. I’m not sure why. The bottom 30 countries are mainly east asian or eastern european.
Once per capita income hits about 5k people stop having more than 2-3 kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox#mediaviewer/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg
In fact, France is a bad example since it has the highest birthrate in Europe.
And this state of affair is precisely often attributed to public policies very supportive of families (wide availability of public daycare centers, tax breaks, very long maternity leaves, subsidies to families with 2+ children, etc…) and apparently also in some cases cultural attitude (it seems for instance that in Germany working full time when you’re a mother is generally frowned upon, and that there’s still pressure to choose between career and children).
Not from my point of view, at least, because I don’t want to see Europe become more Muslim.
I think part of it is that our gender roles and household structures are still in an awkward transitional state. Women have a lot more options and are doing a lot of really cool stuff, but they are also shouldering the bulk of the housework and childcare. It’s a pretty raw deal-- the men stay basically the same, and the women get to do twice the work. For a lot of women, not having kids seems like the only way to avoid that.
A factor that I don’t think has been mentioned so far is the expectation that your kids will live to grow up. In societies with a high infant and child mortality rate it makes sense to have more than just the “replacement number”.
Ireland’s birthrate appears to be one of the higher in Europe. I am not sure if that is residual Catholic culture and its influence on reproductive laws or economics or what but I know that anecdotally many parents I know would have more children if they felt they could afford them.
Maybe they could do something crazy like offer paid maternity leave. Oh wait, that won’t work: nearly every country on earth does that already. Except the US.
can someone clear up for me on this? I thought eastern Europe the birthrate was higher…weren’t there stories about teen and preteen moms in Chechnya or Yugoslavia? (someone who had a baby at 12 and that someone whose mom was just 24 and became a grandma) And that they simply have children younger since there was nothing really to do beyond having families (i.e. careers)
I’m not sure why Western Europeans aren’t having kids but I sure know why the American birthrate is dropping…I work in corporate and the utter disregard for working parents is at an all time high…lots of mandatory overtime to save from hiring more staffing. Cutting jobs to save on corporate having to dish out health insurance…
Transitioning to what? I do agree with you that changing roles often indirectly benefit men more consistently. Stay at home dads have it much easier then moms in my opinion.
No, Eastern European fertility rates are much lower than in the west, and have been for a while now. The Soviets and allied communist regimes were very much into getting women out of the home and into the workforce (though interestingly, they apparently had an income gender gap not too dissimilar from our own). Fertility rates then cratered when the economic crisis of postcommunism hit. Chechnya has a relatively fertility rate (3.1), but Russia as a whole is at 1.6.
I think the end point of this transition would be a situation where men feel completely free to be stay-at-home fathers if that suits their family, and where dual income families share household chores and childcare fairly evenly.
That doesn’t mean they have more children. I remember a story about a family like that in Galicia (NW Spain), where in each generation there was a girl who got pregnant real, real early. Remarks included “yeah, apparently every generation in this (extended) family needs to have a repeat, and then the rest manage to avoid being stupid”. The last generation which had had more than three children per nuclear family was in the 1930s and the current generation was aiming for “one, maybe two”.