551
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
551 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19127 readers
4340 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the other thing that’s fueling MAGA conservatives. Birth rates. It’s a topic that keeps coming up in organic conversation.
The talk there isn’t so much about lower birth rates and such. It’s emphasizing how much brown and black people are still having “tons of babies” which everyone else (read: white people) are not.
This should scare you and not so much for the embedded racist sludge that goes with it, but how it speaks to driving motivation. And what MAGA may choose to do about white people not having babies, and how supportive their supporters will be of that choice.
This comedian speaking about that topic under the guise of comedy is simply there to stir that pot. It’s still a political speech of sorts.
It's white replacement theory promoted via "comedy"
I read that the drop in birth rates is almost 100% attributable to solving teen pregnancy.
There's also the well documented effect that more educated people just have less kids in general, and it seems to hold for every country.
I imagine the difference is a between "why" and "why not".
A generally educated couple might encounter the question of "Is there I reason why I should have kids?", decide "yes, because I'd like to", and have 1-3 kids. More poorly educated couples encounter the question "is there a reason why I should not have kids?", decide "no", and have 2-3 more.
The more women have equal rights the lower the birthrate
The more accessible contraception is the lower the birthrate
The more educated people are the lower the birthrate
The more accessible abortion is the lower the birthrate
See a pattern here between that and conservative policies? People, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, who talk about the need to increase birthrate need to realize that these things are what they're wishing to see being gone. No matter how easy you make it to have babies, people don't want enough of them if they have access to education and preventive measures, social democracies with very wide safety nets and social programs and long parental leaves don't have a birthrate any higher than the one in the USA (in fact, in some cases it's some of the lowest in the whole world!).
Part of it is just money. The trickle up economics of the last 10 yrs has squeezed the possibility out of the working class.
That seems true only if you ignore examples from countries where wealth distribution and social mobility is much better or people who have actual wealth.
People in northern Europe don't have more babies even though they have the safety nets, social programs and wealth to have them. Rich people don't have more babies even though they have the means to have them.
People just don't want enough babies to renew the population if they're given the choice and other opportunities, it's that simple.
I said part. What you say is also true. It’s a multi faceted issue.
Other arguments would be climate change and political unrest/uncertainty.
That's the thing though, there's nothing that shows that money is any part of the issue. Heck, poor people have more kids than anyone else.
Clearly it’s a multifaceted issue, but all other things being equal (same culture, same applicable social safety net, etc.), rich people do have more babies than poor countrymates: https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-relationship-between-status-and-children-is-changing
It’s a linear relationship for men, and u-shaped for women (middle-income women have fewer kids than poor women, but high-income women have more kids than middle-income women).
Thanks for telling me the same thing twice and also, that's one study and I'll do the same thing you did and share family stats a second time
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Rich people do have more babies than poor countrymates: https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-relationship-between-status-and-children-is-changing
It's a linear relationship for men, and u-shaped for women (middle-income women have fewer kids than poor women, but high-income women have more kids than middle-income women).
Clearly it's a multifaceted issue, but all other things being equal, more money does make people more likely to have kids.
For men but if you look at women numbers (and that's the important number at they're the ones having the kids) it paints a different picture.
Also
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Also: religion
The two align in that more kids both more people to work themselves to death for cheap, more uneducated voters, and more parishioners to pay tithes
That’s a problem because not only does it lower the “domestic supply of infants”, it also lowers the number of desperately poor kids who enlist in the military right out of high school to escape poverty and get that “free” education.
The cycle of poor is also one of not golden handcuffs, but nickel ones that turn your skin green. It’s a complacent work force. People who don’t engage political activism, join unions (thinking they can’t afford the monthly fees), and keep their heads down for the sake of feeding their kids.
And most working class people doing better than poverty, with kids, turn their main focus on them, on their households. Again with the complacency and keeping your head down, because you have more to lose.
And that’s the problem right there. The fewer kids with mommy and daddy issues, the fewer kids these “elders” can “take under their wing.”
Pretty sure the drop in pregnancies under 19 was 50% of the overall drop, not 100%. That's still huge, but it's not the whole story.
There’s a worldwide phenomenon of falling birth rates. I doubt it’s even mostly attributable to teen birth rates.
there are lots of reasons that vary country to country but fewer teen pregnancies is a major contributor in the US. linking to this video because the original article has a paywall.
so teen pregnancies are a major factor, but the 20-29 age groups are falling a ton as well.
this video covers falling birthrates globally. the specific timestamp has a handy graph of birthrates per age group. linking the video because the original article has a paywall.
so basically teen pregnancies are a major factor, but the 20-29 age groups are falling a ton as well.
In my country, some segments have up to 9kids abd can't afford them a proper upbringing nor education. Motivated by race and religion. Unsurprising.