Are we systematically reducing fertility?

[clstrfbc]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This thread confuses me. Are we talking fertility, which is the ability of a person to initiate pregnancy - or birth rates, which is primarily based on a conscious decision process whether or not to have children?

On a side note, I read the other day that Hong Kong is considering offering incentives to couples to have children since the birth rate is so dismal here.

Fertility rates, and what the long term effect of them declining is. Which I haven't actually seen anyone address. I've seen a lot of people defending lower birth rates.

Thanks for steering it back.

edit--

Ok I missed a couple, there are some really good posts in this thread.

Condor, I'm sorry that the boy with a lot kids got better toys than you. The military (gov) rules are setup to to support the members dependants, not limited to a number. I thought it was very unfair that married people recieved extra pay and/or housing. I guess they did provide barracks too, but I wanted a house. They did provide what I needed though.

I tend to disagree that we will not see the effects of decreased fertility. If the worldwide birthrate has changed so much in the last 50 years~, doesn't it reason that it will continue to change at roughly the same rate. Since wealthier/developed countries have birthrates at around 1.6, what will happen when we spread our standard of family size, and timelines to the undelevoped world?

 

[conjur]

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

 

[clstrfbc]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

I think they are (insurance), but why would they? To save money. Which would strengthen the view that we are being brainwashed to think money is more important than children.

If contraceptives decrease fertility, should we adjust the concept that children should be had later in marriage, close to 30, To earlier in marriage to counteract the cotraceptive-fertility link? If not won't we make harder and harder to have kids, once people want them.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: clstrfbc

I think they are (insurance), but why would they? To save money. Which would strengthen the view that we are being brainwashed to think money is more important than children.

If contraceptives decrease fertility, should we adjust the concept that children should be had later in marriage, close to 30, To earlier in marriage to counteract the contraceptive-fertility link? If not won't we make harder and harder to have kids, once people want them.

You say that like it's a bad thing though. Is it not alright for people to decide that instead of devoting a substantial part of their resources in to raising children, they'd rather do something else? I'm not seeing very many people unhappy that they didn't have more kids, and I don't see why this would otherwise be a problem. Besides, I don't see how encouraging people to become parents earlier is helping; with the ever-rising percentage of college educated members of society, we'd be talking about encouraging couples to start families before they ever had a chance to establish a career, pay off loans, or do the other things we are increasingly see 20-somethings do.

Oh and to answer the question about what happens when this becomes the global norm, I think we'll see the eventual establishment of equilibrium. Should the population begin to shrink(as you imply), I don't see why we won't see a return to the 2.1 replacement rate as crowding decreases, land becomes cheaper(bigger homes for more children), etc.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ahh, yeh, the good old days, when your chances of making it to adulthood were less than 50%, and average life expectancy was 45 or so...

That is the natural order of things...we have upset the balance, and the consequences will manifest themselves, genetically or globally.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

Look at your link again, conjur. That's not the definition of fertility, it's the definition of fertility rate and the use of the word fertility as it applies to demographic assignments.

Let's keep in mind that it takes two to tango and one of the big issues in actual fertility is ovum production and sperm counts. In developed countries these have been shown to be decreasing fairly steadily. The question by the OP is whether this is a natural process or has been induced by man artifically through some sort of chemical changes in our food and/or environment?

Birth rates and the conscuios decision wether or not to have a certain number of children are an issue, but I don't think it's the issue the OP author wants to discuss. I've tried a couple of times to turn this thread in the proper direction and everyone goes on discussing birth rates anyway and ignoring the actual topic.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

Look at your link again, conjur. That's not the definition of fertility, it's the definition of fertility rate and the use of the word fertility as it applies to demographic assignments.

Let's keep in mind that it takes two to tango and one of the big issues in actual fertility is ovum production and sperm counts. In developed countries these have been shown to be decreasing fairly steadily. The question by the OP is whether this is a natural process or has been induced by man artificially through some sort of chemical changes in our food and/or environment?

Birth rates and the conscious decision whether or not to have a certain number of children are an issue, but I don't think it's the issue the OP author wants to discuss. I've tried a couple of times to turn this thread in the proper direction and everyone goes on discussing birth rates anyway and ignoring the actual topic.

Well, do we have some solid numbers on fertility? All the numbers I've seen here are for birth rate or something derived from it, nothing dealing explicitly with the factors you mention.

 

[Cerb]

1950, 1960: BABY BOOM.
It's not that there is a major reason we have less now, but more that there is a major reason we had more then. That is relatively typical after large wars.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: clstrfbc

I wonder what the long term significance decreasing fertility is.

Are we systematically destroying the section of the genepool with the highest fertility rates, and preserving the section with the lowest?

What would the long term effects of this fertility reduction be?

There is a clear trend that both live births, and the fertility ratios have been on a steady decline from 1970.

Source: CDC.gov Health United States 2004
year - crude birth rate - fertility rate per thousand population - per thousand live births.
1950 - 24.1 - 106.2
1960 - 23.7 - 118.0
1970 - 18.4 - 87.9
1980 - 15.9 - 68.4
1985 - 15.8 - 66.3
1990 - 16.7 - 70.9
1995 - 14.6 - 64.6
1998 - 14.3 - 64.3
1999 - 14.2 - 64.4
2000 - 14.4 - 65.9
2001 - 14.1 - 65.3
2002 - 13.9 - 64.8

Is there another cause of fertility decline?

I suspect it's at least somewhat in part due to the fact that women today are more likely to be out there in the workplace having careers and making useful members of Society out of themselves. Personally I think this is a GOOD trend. If development of nations does this, then we can stop or slow overpopulation of the planet just by helping to elevate people to a more freedom/career/accomplishment kind of lifestyle.

Personally, I wouldn't even *consider* dating a woman who just wants to sit around and pop out babies all her life. It's career woman or NO woman.

Jason

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I suspect it's at least somewhat in part due to the fact that women today are more likely to be out there in the workplace having careers and making useful members of Society out of themselves. Personally I think this is a GOOD trend. If development of nations does this, then we can stop or slow overpopulation of the planet just by helping to elevate people to a more freedom/career/accomplishment kind of lifestyle.

Personally, I wouldn't even *consider* dating a woman who just wants to sit around and pop out babies all her life. It's career woman or NO woman.

Jason

Because we all know a stay-at-home mom is a worthless person.


:roll:


It's a shame idiots like you have the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I suspect it's at least somewhat in part due to the fact that women today are more likely to be out there in the workplace having careers and making useful members of Society out of themselves. Personally I think this is a GOOD trend. If development of nations does this, then we can stop or slow overpopulation of the planet just by helping to elevate people to a more freedom/career/accomplishment kind of lifestyle.

Personally, I wouldn't even *consider* dating a woman who just wants to sit around and pop out babies all her life. It's career woman or NO woman.

Jason

Because we all know a stay-at-home mom is a worthless person.
:roll:
It's a shame idiots like you have the right to freedom of speech.

That's pointless flamebait, dude. Accepting that others will do an OK job of keeping up the population (which is really getting too big, anyway), and not wanting to deal with that yourself, is hardly calling a mother worthless.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: clstrfbc

I wonder what the long term significance decreasing fertility is.

Are we systematically destroying the section of the genepool with the highest fertility rates, and preserving the section with the lowest?

What would the long term effects of this fertility reduction be?

There is a clear trend that both live births, and the fertility ratios have been on a steady decline from 1970.

Is there another cause of fertility decline?

Lots of them. People are getting married and having children older, people are living longer, it's becoming increasingly expensive to provide for large families ( mostly in the housing area ), there are more women working, more effective birth control etc.

I don't have any numbers for it, but I would be extremely surprised if abortions even rated a tenth of a percent of the prevented births compared to the above factors.

Still, I wouldn't say that suggesting that abortion is culling the most fertile women is entirely without merit, just that the evidence presented doesn't do anything to support it directly.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Well, do we have some solid numbers on fertility? All the numbers I've seen here are for birth rate or something derived from it, nothing dealing explicitly with the factors you mention.

I did some checking and ran across some very interesting information based on a wide number of studies. Apparently sperm counts in men in the US have not been increasing, as if often reported. They have been staying the same everywhere except New York. In NY they are actually increasing. Odd.

Interesting stuff

 

[Dissipate]

We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Well, do we have some solid numbers on fertility? All the numbers I've seen here are for birth rate or something derived from it, nothing dealing explicitly with the factors you mention.

I did some checking and ran across some very interesting information based on a wide number of studies. Apparently sperm counts in men in the US have not been increasing, as if often reported. They have been staying the same everywhere except New York. In NY they are actually increasing. Odd.

Interesting stuff

So that would mean that male fertility would be holding steady, so unless female rates were in decline(which would surprise me), the overall fertility rate is the same. That would blow out the initial hypothesis that the fertility rate is in decline, and that clstrfbc's population data is (as far as I can tell) based entirely on social changes.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

Regardless of whether it is consciously on their minds or not, government regulation & taxation inevitably drives up the cost of living and having children, thus reducing the incentive to have them. Keeping in mind that this operates on the margin, what taxation & regulation does is it causes couples to think twice about having the nth child. They may have one or two children right off the bat, but then be borderlined on having a third. Whether or not they can afford it (which is heavily influenced by taxation & regulation) may be the deciding factor in having a third child. Another way to look at it would be to look at the extreme. If tax rates were 99%, people would barely have enough money to feed themselves, let alone children. Hence, the birthrate would certainly go down (assuming there wasn't a tax revolt).

Now this isn't the only factor at play of course, but I would say it is a major one.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: clstrfbc

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

I think they are (insurance), but why would they? To save money. Which would strengthen the view that we are being brainwashed to think money is more important than children.

If contraceptives decrease fertility, should we adjust the concept that children should be had later in marriage, close to 30, To earlier in marriage to counteract the cotraceptive-fertility link? If not won't we make harder and harder to have kids, once people want them.

So what happens when the earths resources are out and these very fertile people you pretend to want are eating each other? All you have to do is visit the Red states and then the Blue states to see the effects of overpopulation illustrated. Overpopulation reeks!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: clstrfbc

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demodef.htm#fertility

Fertility:

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming the age-specific fertility rates of the year in which she turned fifteen. Fertility in 1998 in Guatemala and The United States was 4.8 and 2.1 per woman, respectively.

Fertility across the world is correlated with a number of factors. These include: age of marriage; female literacy; childhood mortality. We can also state more subjectively that there exist in different societies values and norms that support childbearing and these may be stronger in some societies than in others. Indirectly, the desire to have a male child may also force the issue in parts of South and East Asia. Contraceptive use is highly correlated with fertility decrease but this is more likely an effect of decisions taken to limit fertility that reflect positive changes in the previous factors listed. Religious affiliation has no clear relationship with fertility. Among Christians, religiosity (church-going) is more of a factor than whether or not one is nominally Protestant or Catholic.

My guess is more and more women taking contraceptives. Aren't more insurance carriers now covering the cost of the pill or other contraceptives in their plans?

I think they are (insurance), but why would they? To save money. Which would strengthen the view that we are being brainwashed to think money is more important than children.

If contraceptives decrease fertility, should we adjust the concept that children should be had later in marriage, close to 30, To earlier in marriage to counteract the cotraceptive-fertility link? If not won't we make harder and harder to have kids, once people want them.

You must realize that birth rate control isn't a money thing, but it is a survival of the species thing.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

Regardless of whether it is consciously on their minds or not, government regulation & taxation inevitably drives up the cost of living and having children, thus reducing the incentive to have them. Keeping in mind that this operates on the margin, what taxation & regulation does is it causes couples to think twice about having the nth child. They may have one or two children right off the bat, but then be borderlined on having a third. Whether or not they can afford it (which is heavily influenced by taxation & regulation) may be the deciding factor in having a third child. Another way to look at it would be to look at the extreme. If tax rates were 99%, people would barely have enough money to feed themselves, let alone children. Hence, the birthrate would certainly go down (assuming there wasn't a tax revolt).

Now this isn't the only factor at play of course, but I would say it is a major one.

And if the birthrate went unchecked by intelligence, malnutrition would eventually drive it down. Any way you look at it, Mother earth will take care of herself first. Gas prices are on the increase and the outlook is getting worse. Why? One reason: China has an improving economy with more demand. A direct illustration of the effect of population on the scarcity of resources.

 

[B00ne]

It is not too hard.

The start of the declining birth rate coincides with the appearance of the pill and the start of mainstream woman liberalization (aka woman actually having carreers instead of devoting their lives to serving their husbands)

could just be coincidence It is proven however, that birth rate is inversely proportional to education level of woman (here at least)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

Regardless of whether it is consciously on their minds or not, government regulation & taxation inevitably drives up the cost of living and having children, thus reducing the incentive to have them. Keeping in mind that this operates on the margin, what taxation & regulation does is it causes couples to think twice about having the nth child. They may have one or two children right off the bat, but then be borderlined on having a third. Whether or not they can afford it (which is heavily influenced by taxation & regulation) may be the deciding factor in having a third child. Another way to look at it would be to look at the extreme. If tax rates were 99%, people would barely have enough money to feed themselves, let alone children. Hence, the birthrate would certainly go down (assuming there wasn't a tax revolt).

Now this isn't the only factor at play of course, but I would say it is a major one.

I would say it's definitely a factor, but not a major one. I suspect that if government did lower taxes and government regulation weren't expensive, more people would have disposable income which would result in and adjustment in the cost of living anyway. More people would be able to buy houses initinally, but housing costs would rise because of it. Consumer prices would go up and offset, to some degree, and benefits from lowering the government taxation and fees.

That's kind of how the how whole economic thing works in a capitalistic society. Prices aren't set at cost+ for many items. Prices are set at what market will bear.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I suspect it's at least somewhat in part due to the fact that women today are more likely to be out there in the workplace having careers and making useful members of Society out of themselves. Personally I think this is a GOOD trend. If development of nations does this, then we can stop or slow overpopulation of the planet just by helping to elevate people to a more freedom/career/accomplishment kind of lifestyle.

Personally, I wouldn't even *consider* dating a woman who just wants to sit around and pop out babies all her life. It's career woman or NO woman.

Jason

Because we all know a stay-at-home mom is a worthless person.


:roll:


It's a shame idiots like you have the right to freedom of speech.

It's plain enough that you are a complete MORON, Conj(ect)ur(e), but let's be very simple here: I never said a WORD to the effect that stay-at-home mom's are worthless people. I never even IMPLIED it. The fact that YOU are a worthless person and an intellectual gnat, however, explains entirely how you would reach such an unfounded, moronic conclusion.

Pull your head OUT of your ass for once, will you?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

Regardless of whether it is consciously on their minds or not, government regulation & taxation inevitably drives up the cost of living and having children, thus reducing the incentive to have them. Keeping in mind that this operates on the margin, what taxation & regulation does is it causes couples to think twice about having the nth child. They may have one or two children right off the bat, but then be borderlined on having a third. Whether or not they can afford it (which is heavily influenced by taxation & regulation) may be the deciding factor in having a third child. Another way to look at it would be to look at the extreme. If tax rates were 99%, people would barely have enough money to feed themselves, let alone children. Hence, the birthrate would certainly go down (assuming there wasn't a tax revolt).

Now this isn't the only factor at play of course, but I would say it is a major one.

While I don't think your point is without merit, I will say that I don't believe the majority of people will be swayed from having children regardless of whether they can afford it or not. We've all seen or perhaps even known the people who work minimum wage or just slightly above jobs, who CLEARLY can't afford children at all, yet they manage to pop out 2 or 3 even so.

Again, I am sure that there is some validity to your theory, and indeed to a *rational* person the expense of raising children should be a deterrent if you really can't afford it, but I don't think that all that many people think rationally once the blood starts flowing south, you know?

Jason

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dissipate
We have a government taxing the hell out of middle class families and driving up the cost of living with enormous regulatory burdens and people are wondering why the birthrate is going down?

I doubt that is on the minds of many people at all when they decide whether to have kids or not.

In fact, I'd say the liberal influence in society is a bigger factor. I lot of childless people I know, most liberals, don't want children to impede on the lifestyle they are used to. Others don't want to bring children into this fvcked up world. Some just despise kids or simply have no desire for children. There are a multitude differing of reasons.

Regardless of whether it is consciously on their minds or not, government regulation & taxation inevitably drives up the cost of living and having children, thus reducing the incentive to have them. Keeping in mind that this operates on the margin, what taxation & regulation does is it causes couples to think twice about having the nth child. They may have one or two children right off the bat, but then be borderlined on having a third. Whether or not they can afford it (which is heavily influenced by taxation & regulation) may be the deciding factor in having a third child. Another way to look at it would be to look at the extreme. If tax rates were 99%, people would barely have enough money to feed themselves, let alone children. Hence, the birthrate would certainly go down (assuming there wasn't a tax revolt).

Now this isn't the only factor at play of course, but I would say it is a major one.

While I don't think your point is without merit, I will say that I don't believe the majority of people will be swayed from having children regardless of whether they can afford it or not. We've all seen or perhaps even known the people who work minimum wage or just slightly above jobs, who CLEARLY can't afford children at all, yet they manage to pop out 2 or 3 even so.

Again, I am sure that there is some validity to your theory, and indeed to a *rational* person the expense of raising children should be a deterrent if you really can't afford it, but I don't think that all that many people think rationally once the blood starts flowing south, you know?

Jason

I agree. What the government is essentially doing is it is stripping those for whom it is rational to have children of the resources to raise them, and then using them to encourage those for whom it is not rational to have children, to have children. It does this through a string of subsidies including public education, free healthcare programs etc.