this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
187 points (94.3% liked)

World News

38978 readers
2860 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Notably, Chang's report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line."

(...)

"The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students' early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It won't make people have enough kids to renew the population though otherwise birthrate would have been higher than it was in the 70s and 80s

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In what country?

I'm talking about raising wages by 40-70% in the US.

Pipe dream, but if it happened the fertility rate would increase.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's the same story in all countries as they become developed, access to birth control and people having other more interesting shit to do means they don't want to have kids, no matter how easy it is for them.

Finland: 1910 to 1930 4.7 to 2.4, 1950 to 1975 3.4 to 1.6, between 1.5 and 1.9 since then.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033730/fertility-rate-finland-1800-2020/

Look at Canada's numbers the second the pill becomes available in the 60s (years before Reaganomics and at a time where people were still able to make it on a single income)

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

UK, going down since the end of the industrial revolution

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033074/fertility-rate-uk-1800-2020/

People just don't want enough kids to renew the population when they're given the choice to do something else, it's that simple.

Heck, increased income is associated with decreased fertility, it's been known for decades at this point! How come the rich don't have tons of kids? They don't have to stress about money, right? How come poor people have more kids than the middle class? It's not as if they have a surplus of cash or can afford to only have one parent working, right?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

France made childcare and education free and relatively high quality and look at that! They have just under replacement level fertility!

Some people do want children. Not everyone, but lots of people do. It's true that wealth depresses fertility, but you can have a sustainable society if you give people financial security.

I'm willing to believe there are some cultural issues at play, not just the economics, but that is for demographers to tease out.

The American congressional representatives have an average of 2 children. Replacement rate. Get our standard of living up to that and you will see fertility go up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/472322/natalite-france/

Downward trend

Longer term

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033137/fertility-rate-france-1800-2020/

Downward trend

Replacement rate is 2.1, not 2

Nice for congressional representatives, did you take a look at their age? Average is 58 and 64 in the Senate, median is 58 and 65 respectively from what I'm finding. They're not people who are making the choice to have or not have kids right now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

maybe because regardless of money, some people don't want to have and raise kids in the shitshow this world has become over the last 30 yrs?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Look at long term trends, it's not a 30 years thing, 100 years ago Finland was getting close to being under minimum required to renew its population.

When women get rights, people get education and people have access to birth control, they stop having kids, the situation in the world at the moment only adds more reasons but even in a perfect world people wouldn't have enough kids to renew the population.