[sothatstheway]

In a class for my Masters in Public Health, we saw evidence that really nothing affected the average number of kids women had in any country or the average age they had their first child except for one factor: the education level of the women. That is, as education went up for women, the average # of children went down and the average age they had their first child went up.

If this is still true, the flip of that is that as countries climb up the relative ladder and women have greater access to education, expect to see population #s dwindle without having really any levers to affect it otherwise.

[trophycase]

I kind of have a hard time believing this. Especially since the causation could run the other way. Declining birth rates are probably due to a lot of factors, the biggest being use of birth control, discouraging women from having children, societal attacks on traditional gender roles, obesity, lower testosterone/sperm levels in men due to lack of exercise/chemical pollutants/cultural factors.

I'd be very interested to see this research. I have a hard time believing that anything positive will be done about the birth rate if this is what they are teaching at a masters level.

I also think the cost of having children is completely overblown, people just simply aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

[toomuchtodo]

https://ifstudies.org/blog/research-debunks-myth-that-econom...

TLDR The opportunity cost of having children in affluent society is too damn high.

[tuatoru]

That post misrepresents its own source.

"It’s worth noting that a 2018 poll of individuals who have chosen not have children found the most frequently-cited reason for their decision was a desire for more leisure time."

... "more leisure time" is a link to a NY Times article[1]. The chart in that article shows economic reasons[2] collectively cited much more frequently than a desire for more leisure time.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...

2. "Child care is too expensive", "worried about the economy", "can't afford more children", and "waited because of financial instability" all score more highly than "want more leisure time". These are all economic[3] reasons. "Want more time for the children I have" could be seen as economic also, given that the most likely reason for not spending as much time as desired is having to have employment.

The list goes on: "not enough paid family leave" and "no paid family leave" are the next highest-scoring reasons. Also economic reasons.

To me this chart cumulatively reads as "I/we are forced to spend more time than I/we desire in pursuit of income/financial security, with unsatisfactory results." It confirms that "economic reasons"[3] is the primary cause of low fertility.

3. "Economic" comes from oikos and noum-, "household" and "budgeting/regulation", so all of the reasons above are economic reasons.

[noneeeed]

Really interesting to see an alternative view from the prevailing narrative that it's all about the direct costs (housing, childcare etc).

It seems to be such a multi-factor problem that I don't see any governments managing to come up with "solutions" to it, especially as most that are put forward are single factor and rarely amount to much more than fiddling around the edges.

[mistrial9]

> the education level of the women

educators in the WEIRD schools teach this, for sure. They also teach a lot of other things that have not stood the test of time.