[thisisdave]

This article uses the word “conceptions” throughout, but it sounds like the only data is about births. These births would have all occurred after the recessions started.

Did the original paper rule out the hypothesis that the recession actually affected births via an increase in miscarriages and abortions instead? I can’t access it.

[varunramesh]

According to the paper, "The data include the infant’s month of birth, and a clinical estimate of gestation in weeks, which we use to estimate a month of conception."

On miscarriages, "We interpret these data with caution because they come from a subset of one state, and because fetal deaths are under-reported. Nevertheless, the data provide no evidence of an increase in miscarriages leading up to recessions that is anywhere near the magnitude required to explain a significant portion of the observed decrease in births." They similarly argue that abortions aren't significant enough to explain the reduction in births.

[alex_hitchins]

Birth - 9 months = conception (on average)

[tathougies]

Yeah, that misses out on stillbirths and miscarriages.

[alex_hitchins]

Miscarriages maybe but I believe stillbirths are legally required to be recorded. As unpleasant and upsetting as it is, it would be an interesting data point in it's own regard to observe.

[tathougies]

Unfortunately, I have lot of personal experience here. The reporting on still births varies greatly. Some states require it past week 16, others stipulate a birth weight, and others set more arbitrary criteria. You would have to account for a lot of external factors.