It's not only longer education that is reducing the opportunity to have children. Its the necessity for women to work in order to finance a home. House price inflation has exceeded the growth in wages. In 1908 , in Melbourne Australia, in an arbitration court set up to manage relations between employers and workers, Justice Higgins in the Harvester Judgement set a 'basic wage', a minimum wage for a male that would enable that single worker to support a stay at home wife to look after their family, and it was a large family at that time. Put it down to the rapacity of the economic system that has enabled some to thrive at the expense of others. And this in the context of rapidly increasing productivity due to the use of machines and the availability of many new sources of energy to drive them. And to make that power widely available via the generation of electricity and its distribution via the 'grid'. Still measured in 'horsepower'.
If we want more births we have to enable a man to put a roof over his head for no more than three times his annual income and somehow reorganise society so that people can walk or cycle to work, and kids to school without the use of an automobile.
And yet the single mom (or not even single mom but poor parents) are somehow able to raise many kids that significantly better off parents "can't afford".
Fertility has a U shaped relationship with both education and income. Fertility rises again for women with graduate school or higher and at the highest incomes.
Completely underrated point, especially on this blog. I’m getting quite tired of this writer emphasizing the crumbs of ‘education’ and ‘culture’, rather than emphasizing the main core which is the crisis in housing and childcare affordability.
Culture is to a large extent downstream of the financial position forced upon young people by the economy.
Yes, we tend to assume that the hand that we have been dealt in life is what we deserve. In fact power relationships create a hierarchy for the convenience of an influential minority that a set of characteristics like the Hindu Caste System. Just think of what the automobile has enabled in terms of utterly dysfunctional urban sprawl.
Really eye-opening stuff on cohesin breakdown and chromosome seperation in aging eggs. That biological mechanism is rarely discussed in mainstream fertility convos but it explains so much. I remember when IVF seemed like a magic fix for everything back in grad school, didnt realize the chromosome issue was the limiting factor. Crazy how much we're not taught about basic reproductive biology.
I'm 41, started trying at 30, managed 2 kids, want more, but it's not likely at this point. I want young women today to be much more informed about their fertility and really hate seeing IVF & Freezing Eggs offered as the solution.
I'd like for my kids to marry and have kids in their 20s. My husband and I can support them through college and watch the grandchildren. We'll see what happens.
This is an interesting essay but its based on what I consider to be a false premise: in my experience most women (and men) don’t desire a large family. Most families are happy with 1-2 kids.
In fact, Those who have more than 3 kids are often looked down upon in the community: their kids often suffer academically (as the
Parents don’t have the time and resources to support each child in school), and kids also don’t have access to the same slew of after school programs that kids in smaller families do. Plus, I know many women who are one and done- after giving birth they said, „I’m never doing that again!“
Sure, we can debate if all those activities and focus on academic excellence is a good thing or not, but it’s dominant in the culture where I live. It’s simply not feasible to have multiple kids in multiple activities and provide them with the focused attention that kids in smaller families receive.
I don’t think simply giving more money to families is s panacea. Larger families aren’t common in countries where there is „Kindergeld „ (Baby Money/ tax incentives) . Plus, many adults are simply averse to the work created by children such as the additional laundry, cooking, illnesses and logistics. Moreover , as mentioned above, I know several women who gave birth once, decided it was unpleasant and vowed to never do it again. The issue in my opinion is, there are so many alternatives nowadays of how to be an adult, and many of those alternatives are easier and/or more glamorous than having a large family.
Keep increasing the "Kindergeld" until being a parent is as easy/glamorous as not being one.
Working on an oil rig is unpleasant, and yet people do it because it pays well. Laundry, cooking, and logistics can all be solved by hiring people to do them for you. Or by having a SAHM because you don't need two incomes to afford a house, etc.
I think one possible solution that feels underexplored in discussions around birth rates is that women's education and childbearing don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. In many ways the schedules and flexibility of higher education have the potential to be more friendly to the demands of motherhood than full time work, which is less flexible and tends to demand full reign over a large chunk of daily time.
The financial aspect is perhaps the biggest obstacle - but if higher education costs were renormalized to the actual cost of the education - not administrative bloat, multimillion dollar athletic programs, and resort-style amenities - and childbearing was treated more as a universal social good than a dangerous distraction and waste of potential for young women, having small children while completing higher education might actually prove to be more parent-friendly than trying to navigate early motherhood and full time work at an early career stage.
Teaching people about fertility will do next to nothing. Women in the developed world know very well that their fertility declines with time. Unless you are a high earner or are the beneficiary of generational wealth, most couples are priced out of starting a family. Affording a 3 bedroom home? Not on one income you aren’t. Both parents must work. Now you’re signed up for monthly payments comparable to a mortgage to pay for daycare.
Many young people desperately want children and are fully aware that their time is limited. But they are not willing to plunge themselves into financial precarity to do it.
It's not only longer education that is reducing the opportunity to have children. Its the necessity for women to work in order to finance a home. House price inflation has exceeded the growth in wages. In 1908 , in Melbourne Australia, in an arbitration court set up to manage relations between employers and workers, Justice Higgins in the Harvester Judgement set a 'basic wage', a minimum wage for a male that would enable that single worker to support a stay at home wife to look after their family, and it was a large family at that time. Put it down to the rapacity of the economic system that has enabled some to thrive at the expense of others. And this in the context of rapidly increasing productivity due to the use of machines and the availability of many new sources of energy to drive them. And to make that power widely available via the generation of electricity and its distribution via the 'grid'. Still measured in 'horsepower'.
If we want more births we have to enable a man to put a roof over his head for no more than three times his annual income and somehow reorganise society so that people can walk or cycle to work, and kids to school without the use of an automobile.
And yet fertility is inversely correlated with income.
That's the single Mum parking her car under the streetlamp so her kids can do their homework.
And yet the single mom (or not even single mom but poor parents) are somehow able to raise many kids that significantly better off parents "can't afford".
It's called social services. And its a pittance. The kids go to school without breakfast.
> The kids go to school without breakfast.
I take it you have been in suspended animation since the 1930s and just woke up.
Fertility has a U shaped relationship with both education and income. Fertility rises again for women with graduate school or higher and at the highest incomes.
Slightly, but that doesn't affect my point.
Explain how the U shaped relationship between income and fertility doesn’t affect your point that fertility is inversely correlated with income.
For starters, the relationship is negative in the range you're talking about.
What do you mean?
Completely underrated point, especially on this blog. I’m getting quite tired of this writer emphasizing the crumbs of ‘education’ and ‘culture’, rather than emphasizing the main core which is the crisis in housing and childcare affordability.
Culture is to a large extent downstream of the financial position forced upon young people by the economy.
Erl's point is completely wrong, as the article itself points out.
Fertility is inversely correlated with just about any measure of wealth or income.
Yes, we tend to assume that the hand that we have been dealt in life is what we deserve. In fact power relationships create a hierarchy for the convenience of an influential minority that a set of characteristics like the Hindu Caste System. Just think of what the automobile has enabled in terms of utterly dysfunctional urban sprawl.
Really eye-opening stuff on cohesin breakdown and chromosome seperation in aging eggs. That biological mechanism is rarely discussed in mainstream fertility convos but it explains so much. I remember when IVF seemed like a magic fix for everything back in grad school, didnt realize the chromosome issue was the limiting factor. Crazy how much we're not taught about basic reproductive biology.
I'm 41, started trying at 30, managed 2 kids, want more, but it's not likely at this point. I want young women today to be much more informed about their fertility and really hate seeing IVF & Freezing Eggs offered as the solution.
I'd like for my kids to marry and have kids in their 20s. My husband and I can support them through college and watch the grandchildren. We'll see what happens.
This is an interesting essay but its based on what I consider to be a false premise: in my experience most women (and men) don’t desire a large family. Most families are happy with 1-2 kids.
In fact, Those who have more than 3 kids are often looked down upon in the community: their kids often suffer academically (as the
Parents don’t have the time and resources to support each child in school), and kids also don’t have access to the same slew of after school programs that kids in smaller families do. Plus, I know many women who are one and done- after giving birth they said, „I’m never doing that again!“
Sure, we can debate if all those activities and focus on academic excellence is a good thing or not, but it’s dominant in the culture where I live. It’s simply not feasible to have multiple kids in multiple activities and provide them with the focused attention that kids in smaller families receive.
Yeah but you could solve this by just giving big families more money. You then hire help to make it all work or can afford a SAHM.
I don’t think simply giving more money to families is s panacea. Larger families aren’t common in countries where there is „Kindergeld „ (Baby Money/ tax incentives) . Plus, many adults are simply averse to the work created by children such as the additional laundry, cooking, illnesses and logistics. Moreover , as mentioned above, I know several women who gave birth once, decided it was unpleasant and vowed to never do it again. The issue in my opinion is, there are so many alternatives nowadays of how to be an adult, and many of those alternatives are easier and/or more glamorous than having a large family.
Keep increasing the "Kindergeld" until being a parent is as easy/glamorous as not being one.
Working on an oil rig is unpleasant, and yet people do it because it pays well. Laundry, cooking, and logistics can all be solved by hiring people to do them for you. Or by having a SAHM because you don't need two incomes to afford a house, etc.
Great idea :)
I think one possible solution that feels underexplored in discussions around birth rates is that women's education and childbearing don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. In many ways the schedules and flexibility of higher education have the potential to be more friendly to the demands of motherhood than full time work, which is less flexible and tends to demand full reign over a large chunk of daily time.
The financial aspect is perhaps the biggest obstacle - but if higher education costs were renormalized to the actual cost of the education - not administrative bloat, multimillion dollar athletic programs, and resort-style amenities - and childbearing was treated more as a universal social good than a dangerous distraction and waste of potential for young women, having small children while completing higher education might actually prove to be more parent-friendly than trying to navigate early motherhood and full time work at an early career stage.
Teaching people about fertility will do next to nothing. Women in the developed world know very well that their fertility declines with time. Unless you are a high earner or are the beneficiary of generational wealth, most couples are priced out of starting a family. Affording a 3 bedroom home? Not on one income you aren’t. Both parents must work. Now you’re signed up for monthly payments comparable to a mortgage to pay for daycare.
Many young people desperately want children and are fully aware that their time is limited. But they are not willing to plunge themselves into financial precarity to do it.