31–40 of 49 posts
And this (the jumping to conclusions and the lack of data points in the article) is the reason people in real sciences sneer at sociology... This isn't science, this is politics.
While the idea of the article is entertaining, the data is ridiculous. 3 data points: '00, '05, and '10. The policy came into play in '07. Yet the downward trend was already visible in '05. It barely changed for '10. A more interesting (and honest) take of the data is in women's desire for more children. It was on a decline in '05, but ticked up sharply for '10. So if I was writing this, I would have said: "After men…
Those 3 data points were used in a graphic, which is not relevant to the actual experiment performed. Their experiment focused on cohorts of "parents who were (just) entitled to the new paternity leave" and "(just) ineligible parents". This design provides quasi-randomization so that any prior "downward trend" is not relevant, and clearly there are more than "3 data points" at play.
As a dad who has taken two 12w paternity, I realized a few things after the birth of my second child. • There was no limit to the amount of love I could give to my second child. • There was a limit of time and attention I could share with both children which I felt started to hamper my ability to share that love. • The logistics of a second child made everything take exponentially more time. Meals, transport, dressin…
As father to three children, my experience is that you only think two is exponentially more complex than one. At least with two, they don't always outnumber you!
While the idea of the article is entertaining, the data is ridiculous. 3 data points: '00, '05, and '10. The policy came into play in '07. Yet the downward trend was already visible in '05. It barely changed for '10. A more interesting (and honest) take of the data is in women's desire for more children. It was on a decline in '05, but ticked up sharply for '10. So if I was writing this, I would have said: "After men…
Here's my snarky theory about it: after men got paternity leave, they were forced to be at home and help with the child-rearing, which took some of the burden off the mothers. This made the mothers want more kids because now they didn't have to do so much work. However, now the men got to see firsthand what a pain in the ass kids are, instead of being able to relegate that work to their wives, so now they don't want…
The problem is that both men and women are deciding to having less kids. And that trend has continued with maternity leave, paternity leave and even paying people to have children.
In poor countries, they have more kids. Is that because of your caricature or lack of it?
Europe has provided great benefits to women and men to have more kids. Birth rates have declined.
https://www.thelocal.it/20180627/italy-declining-birthrate-p...
Governments are even paying women to have kids and that hasn't helped.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when...
The only thing that increases birth rates is an increase of poorer and less educated women. The wealthier and better educated women are, the less children they have. That is the only consistent correlation across ethnicities, cultures, religions, etc. Educate women and reach a certain level of wealth and birth rates drop.
It's true in japan
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/japans-births-and-marriages-...
korea, china to iran and all the way to europe.
If we really wanted to increase birth rates, kicking females out of school and removing any and all benefits would be better than increasing benefits. It's counterintuitive, but it's true. Or maybe we could accept that population decline is going to happen and prepare for that? It's strange how we think we can bribe women to have more children. That's never going to happen, so we should learn to live with our current reality.
And this (the jumping to conclusions and the lack of data points in the article) is the reason people in real sciences sneer at sociology... This isn't science, this is politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
It's pseudoscience used by people to push ideological and political agenda. Ever since science pretty much knocked religion down a peg or two, the activists created a new form of "religion" to further political goals.
As a dad who has taken two 12w paternity, I realized a few things after the birth of my second child. • There was no limit to the amount of love I could give to my second child. • There was a limit of time and attention I could share with both children which I felt started to hamper my ability to share that love. • The logistics of a second child made everything take exponentially more time. Meals, transport, dressin…
You're not spacing them out correctly, you have to wait till the oldest one can help take care of the youngest one.
California's (or san Francisco's... Not sure) six weeks of paid paternity leave made this dad want more kids. Babies are the best! Maybe if they gave more time off they'd want more children
After seeing other peoples' ADHD kids and what misery it is to try to parent them, I don't have much desire to have any kids.
On the flip side I think a lot of parents do this to themselves. Kids are not born knowing how to be polite, respectful, play well with others, etc, it has to be trained. It is an exhausting thing to train but it pays dividends. Ironically the less effort you spend on this the worse your kids get, making it even more of a misery to parent them.
Of course there are exceptions (I don't know if you were being serious/clinical with ADHD but that's one of them)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? At the same time, automation will result in lower demand. Hard to say which trend is more important. Combined, I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.
When you have a 4:1 worker:retired ratio the burden on workers is much lighter than when you have a 1:1 ratio. See public retirement funds as a big ponzi scheme, it only works if people getting in > people cashing out. Living pay checks to pay checks means that you have 0 margin and will l00% rely on society to survive. > Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? I don't think it's…
I don't particularly want to do that work either, so I'm certainly not immune to this criticism. But I think we might need to get over that. Since it's actually pretty important, this work should be respected and better paid, and it's actually a good thing if other work can be automated and more people move into taking care of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's my snarky theory about it: after men got paternity leave, they were forced to be at home and help with the child-rearing, which took some of the burden off the mothers. This made the mothers want more kids because now they didn't have to do so much work. However, now the men got to see firsthand what a pain in the ass kids are, instead of being able to relegate that work to their wives, so now they don't want…
That's the pathetic "liberal" sexist caricature you see on TV and media. And like most caricature in media, it's nonsense. The problem is that both men and women are deciding to having less kids. And that trend has continued with maternity leave, paternity leave and even paying people to have children. In poor countries, they have more kids. Is that because of your caricature or lack of it? Europe has provided great…
I recall at least a few articles suggesting that among ancient humans far fewer men than women engage in reproduction, suggesting that only a handful of men (proportionally speaking) were selected to breed by a larger population of women. I hate that it sounds like incel speak but we could probably see more babies if we 1) get rid of monogamous culture altogether and 2) limit birth control options. The alternative is to return to a stricter marriage and baby making enforcement culture.
I'm not advocating for anything here to be clear. I just dont think theres a "solution" that lands perfectly where everyone wants it to