I mean why are birth rates always the highest in the poorest regions? Makes you think that money likely has little to do with reproductive rates, and more along the lines of women gaining education and having access to family planning methods.
The poorest may reproduce the most because they are going to be poor either way, and they might also not have as much means to avoid it. But it is definitely a consideration for middle class people in developed nations who may have reasonably comfortable lives if they don’t reproduce but will put themselves into hardship if they do.
I think there’s actually a bath tub curve with reproduction.
Also, poorer nations tend to have less protections for children/youth in the labor sector, so having more children can be beneficial in that you can send all of them out to earn money.
Which means that women are more likely to stay at home taking care of the kids. And if they do work, they do so part time. Which still leaves time to take care of the kids.
The regions with low birthrates usually have women working full time. And full time means 8h+.
I bet people would be having more kids if people that can work from home, worked from home. And if full time meant 6h instead of 8h+.
That way, instead of working husband + stay at home mom, we could have commuting parent and WFH parent.
With the added benefit of commuting parent having a shorter commute since there would be a lot less people commuting.
Nordic countries have lower overall working hours, and don’t see increased birthrates. And make higher salaries. It’s almost like when women become educated and have access to family planning methods, they don’t have as many children.
This perception is largely overblown though, there is some difference but the poor in western civilisation still do not produce enough children on average to get to a sustainable population number.
What might be a part of it is that globally the poorest region there is a lot of internal solidarity and community building.
Helping each other out becomes second nature if it means that the neighbourhood will have your back during worst times. Forming the village to raise a child.
Add other factors like normalised child labor and indeed no access to contraception or general healthcare (including normalised child death, my European great grand parents have also mentioned the concept of basically “backup” children and normalised loss of siblings)
Some people migrating from such cultures may take some of it with them. People who raised around big families may want to replicate their image of a family but this seems to rapidly decline with each following generation.
The west has a long history of living from exploitation. we build a culture around “civilized /s” families having wealth and became financially competitive. When things go bad there is rarely ever someone to help because either “i don’t have this problem so it must be your own fault” or “no one helped me when i was in that position”
I don’t remember my latest source on this and i spend to long typing this to go look but the statistics i saw that showed that immigration is not the answer to declining population because they don’t produce enough kids either for sustainability was recent data from this year.
And then get all “muh replacement theory” when parents from cultures where multi generational households are the norm are the only people that can afford to have kids.
This is also happening with reproduction
“Don’t reproduce if you can’t afford it”
But also
“Why are fertility rates falling into the abyss?”
I mean why are birth rates always the highest in the poorest regions? Makes you think that money likely has little to do with reproductive rates, and more along the lines of women gaining education and having access to family planning methods.
The poorest may reproduce the most because they are going to be poor either way, and they might also not have as much means to avoid it. But it is definitely a consideration for middle class people in developed nations who may have reasonably comfortable lives if they don’t reproduce but will put themselves into hardship if they do.
I think there’s actually a bath tub curve with reproduction.
Also, poorer nations tend to have less protections for children/youth in the labor sector, so having more children can be beneficial in that you can send all of them out to earn money.
Send? Don’t they yearn for the mines?
I have bad news about what society does with child laborers who graduate into adult laborers but without fingers.
Why would ‘society’ need laborers without fingers? Sounds like they’ve outlived their usefulness. What’s the issue?
Poorer regions usually are more conservative too.
Which means that women are more likely to stay at home taking care of the kids. And if they do work, they do so part time. Which still leaves time to take care of the kids.
The regions with low birthrates usually have women working full time. And full time means 8h+.
I bet people would be having more kids if people that can work from home, worked from home. And if full time meant 6h instead of 8h+.
That way, instead of working husband + stay at home mom, we could have commuting parent and WFH parent.
With the added benefit of commuting parent having a shorter commute since there would be a lot less people commuting.
Nordic countries have lower overall working hours, and don’t see increased birthrates. And make higher salaries. It’s almost like when women become educated and have access to family planning methods, they don’t have as many children.
Turns out it was the men that wanted the children the whole time. Which definitely tracks with my experience. Men want women to sacrifice for them.
Usually they have lots of kids so they have kids to help with the farm plus most of these countries are very conservative
This perception is largely overblown though, there is some difference but the poor in western civilisation still do not produce enough children on average to get to a sustainable population number.
What might be a part of it is that globally the poorest region there is a lot of internal solidarity and community building.
Helping each other out becomes second nature if it means that the neighbourhood will have your back during worst times. Forming the village to raise a child.
Add other factors like normalised child labor and indeed no access to contraception or general healthcare (including normalised child death, my European great grand parents have also mentioned the concept of basically “backup” children and normalised loss of siblings)
Some people migrating from such cultures may take some of it with them. People who raised around big families may want to replicate their image of a family but this seems to rapidly decline with each following generation.
The west has a long history of living from exploitation. we build a culture around “civilized /s” families having wealth and became financially competitive. When things go bad there is rarely ever someone to help because either “i don’t have this problem so it must be your own fault” or “no one helped me when i was in that position”
I don’t remember my latest source on this and i spend to long typing this to go look but the statistics i saw that showed that immigration is not the answer to declining population because they don’t produce enough kids either for sustainability was recent data from this year.
Or its causal and having kids makes you poor.
And then get all “muh replacement theory” when parents from cultures where multi generational households are the norm are the only people that can afford to have kids.