Then why have birthrates fallen across almost the entire world as the economy has gotten better?

christophilus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect it's a curve. If you're raised in a vibrant economy, and it falls apart, you put off having a family because of uncertainty and fears. If you're raised in poverty, and get a good education and better prospects, you have fewer kids. I think the latter is because you no longer need kids as an economic safeguard and fallback, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure anyone is really sure, to be honest.

▲

timacles an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the economy has mathematically gotten better yes.

economic _hope_ is at its worst in the entire history of the human civilization. At what point did the future for the average person, look so bleak? And

that hope is what dictactes wether people have children.

Even during the great depression, people were more hopeful that the earth isnt completely hosed.

Does anyone honestly feel like _any_ improvements are possible to: our economic systems, political systems, environment? I certainly dont.

▲

drybjed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps the previous birth rate was artificially increased due to inequality imposed by part of the population. More equality and opportunity for everyone means more choices and less pressure to reproduce. What's the base birth rate for human species?

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

malfist 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More billionaires does not mean the economy has gotten better for the median person

▲

Jtarii 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you think the economy is worse for the average person than it was in 1900?

▲

bubblemoth 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, but is it worse than it was in 1950? 1960? 1990?

	▲	AnimalMuppet 36 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There was optimism - the hope of a better future - in 1950, 1960, and 1990. There isn't now. We are in fact in a better place than we were then. But we don't trust the derivative.
	▲	pixl97 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean 50-60 was the post war baby boom, so not really sure if that's a good example for the US in particular.

▲

lenerdenator 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Define "as the economy has gotten better".

Economic output has increased, but the value being delivered to the people doing the actual work has decreased. There's less durability of employment. People are more geographically mobile.

All of these generally make the idea of strapping yourself into taking care of a small human sound like a less enticing prospect. To a lot of people, a BC pill sounds a lot easier. Well, less risky, at least.

	▲	pessimizer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Define "as the economy has gotten better". People who live in huts and shit in the forest have more children than people who live in shacks and shit in the fields. This is not a discussion about the top 10% of the population of the planet, although as a part of the conversation, they predictably have the fewest children. The fact is that the more people have to worry about supporting themselves, the higher infant mortality, the closer they live to each other, and the less access they have to education and birth control, the more kids they have. If anything the top 10% are bucking the trend by having fewer children as they get poorer, as you say. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that they're alienated from their families and live alone, can barely afford to take care of themselves with precarious jobs (or non-job piecework), have access to basic education and extensive birth control, having children will cost them $20K each just for the birth, and they don't have very good (or often any) insurance. They're more like domesticated farm animals than the typical poverty stricken person. Domesticated farm animals reproduce when the farmer wants them to.