Birth rates are falling in the Nordics. Are natalist policies no longer enough?

Post by thriftwy » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 8:10 PM UTC

kredd wrote: post #70

beaeglebeached wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most the statistics cut off at ~200-300+k income catch all bucket which drowns out the rich averages. See my source above capturing higher income buckets which pronounce the U. Near equal (higher) fertility at both extremes might be, but not proof of, the hypothesis the dirt poor and filthy rich are the fertility rate you get when opportunity cost looks near 0. A bucket you often see stopping at 300+k imo far too low…

I still don't understand how the opportunity cost can be 0 for the rich. Women still have to get pregnant, and sacrifice a lot of things at the cost of 1 year per kid. Like sure, they'll have nannies, but the years of "when you can have fun and do all the self-fulfillment stuff" is gone. Usually that cohort of people are also fairly educated, so they have even more connections and opportunities to lose during those l…

Post by irrational » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 8:22 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

irrational wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the impulse to reproduce the same as the impulse to have sex?

What does the fertility rate and surveys of people of reproductive age tell us?

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #113

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the fertility rate and surveys of people of reproductive age tell us?

Well, the recent studies say nobody is having sex anymore, especially among the younger generations. So, people are not having sex and people are not having children. I’m not sure what that says. If people were having sex without having kids, that would mean something, but that isn’t the reality.

Post by kredd » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 10:57 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #111

kredd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand how the opportunity cost can be 0 for the rich. Women still have to get pregnant, and sacrifice a lot of things at the cost of 1 year per kid. Like sure, they'll have nannies, but the years of "when you can have fun and do all the self-fulfillment stuff" is gone. Usually that cohort of people are also fairly educated, so they have even more connections and opportunities to lose during those l…

I can't say for everybody but around 30 "fun and self-fulfilling stuff" becomes repetitive and bland. You see the end of it and then having a baby changes everything. Fun but bland thing become funnier once you experience them together with the little person.

Post by kredd » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 1:17 AM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #118

kredd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own. I've heard second hand accounts for all kind of scenarios - parents regretting their decisions in their 30s, extremely happy parents, childless extremely happy couples in their 50s, and some with their regrets. That being said, even if you have 1 child to "have some fun with the little person", it's still below 2+ children a couple is supposed to have to fix the birth rate problem.

I advise having at least two since they will make each other busy and get out of your hair sometimes. And these arguments are totally decoupled from birth rate problem.