A recent study published in Scientific Reports suggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.
The data revealed a pronounced change in how political beliefs relate to family size. For individuals born in the early 1900s, political orientation had almost no association with the number of children they had. However, beginning with the cohort born between 1943 and 1947, a massive divergence emerged.
“We expected these results, but not to such a dramatic extent,” Fieder told PsyPost. From the mid-century cohorts onward, individuals with right-wing political views maintained birth rates at or slightly above the replacement level. The replacement level, typically considered to be 2.1 children per woman, is the rate needed for a population to replace itself from one generation to the next without immigration.
In contrast, the birth rates of left-wing individuals dropped sharply, falling well below the replacement level in the more recent cohorts. The authors noticed this drop aligns with historical changes in family planning. “We found that the gap began with the introduction of modern contraception,” Fieder said.
Sure, but even then they stay above replacement. You need the economic calculus of an urbanized capitalist economy to get the shitshow seen in most of the developed world.
Affordability is only 36% of the stated reasons women aren’t having more children.
The other reasons are: still looking for the right spouse, lifestyle or career, family is still growing, and trouble conceiving.
There’s many reasons and just shrugging and saying it’s the economy doesn’t explain enough.
I mean there are many reasons, but it’s still obvious from the data that a more accommodating society (both economically and otherwise) would have more children. It’d be easy to argue, for example, that “still looking for the right spouse,” is at least partially caused by delays in entering long-term relationships until it’s financially viable, and this also ties into “trouble conceiving,” because people are expected to spend the years they’d have the easiest time conceiving advancing their careers so they can provide a decent life to their future children. It’d also be absurd to suggest the necessity of two-income households hasn’t contributed to women prioritizing their careers over starting families*. What “affordability” really means here is the proportion of women who’d be able to have more children right now if not for money; it doesn’t count knock-on effects that boil down to unaffordability. Modern urbanized societies are deeply unkind to mothers in ways that need to be untangled before current birth rates can be presented as the results of freedom.
*To be clear, this is perfectly fine as long as it’s a free choice, but clearly in most cases it’s an attempt to optimize against social and economic conditions. Current birth rates aren’t any freer a choice than those of two centuries ago; both are responses to social conditions that make one choice much more optimal compared to others.
What percentage of the reason is simply a refusing to manufacture additional meat for the orphan crushing machine?
From the article that @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io linked…which I’m just now realizing is from Institute for Family Studies a fucking conservative think tank:
One could argue those other reasons are symptoms of a bad economy.
Right and I agree to an extent. The conversations around this subject always conclude the rates will start to go up if the economy is better or if the US enacts maternity leave and care.
But that doesn’t explain why other countries that have parental leave and better support systems are also seeing falling fertility and birth rates.
The connecting piece that seems to be emerging is women’s ability to control their reproductive health and access to education.
Trouble conceiving is often related to age. Ability to conceive naturally drops in women’s thirties. If a woman in her twenties didn’t think her family could support kids, then in her thirties she may find out she’s having trouble conceiving
We should stop making young people support people in old age. It drops fertility, makes the electorate older and more likely to vote for more benefits for themselves.
One example is rent control. It only decreases your cost of living if you’ve been there a long time. It decreases the supply of housing long term
Women in their twenties are delaying children for a multitude of reasons and career opportunities and education are big factors.
When given the choice via contraception and reproductive health, women have children later in their lives.
Wow, you really linked to the Institute of Family Studies?
That’s not a credible source at all.
TIL, but also I mean, I wouldn’t trust it to interpret data or give me unbiased information but there’s only so much you can mess with in a survey. They’d also be more blatant about it if the data was doctored.
They can absolutely fuck with surveys. How questions are phrased is one way. We have no idea how they collected this data. They’re not a trustworthy source because they have an agenda to force women to have more children.