Political Humor

860 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to Political Humor!

Rules:

Be excellent to each other.
No harassment.
No sexism, racism or bigotry.
All arguments should be made in good faith.
No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
No bots, spam or self-promotion.
If you want to run a bot, ask first.
Site wide rules apply.
Have fun.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BuckRowdy

Diplomjodler3

451

GOP struggling to solve the declining population problem (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by an_onanist to c/politicalhumor

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Stats in countries where wealth distribution is less of an issue prove otherwise, the only way you're making people have more babies is by getting rid of women rights, I don't feel like pulling up all the numbers again but it's the second time I'm having to correct the "if people had more money they would have more kids" theory on Lemmy.

The second the pill becomes legal birthrate drops, the second abortion becomes legal birthrate drops, the second women start working birthrate drops. So do you want these things to become illegal again?

Finland was under population renewal rate in the early 1900s. At the moment in rich countries the people who have the most kids are those with the lowest income because it means they don't have access to preventive means, they would stop having kids if they could afford it. Developing countries see their birthrate go down the richer they get as well.

I'll share that one because it's easy to find:

[–] d00ery 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (19 children)

.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1037268/crude-birth-rate-uk-1800-2020/

If we go back a little further we see a much bigger fall in birthrate before women's rights. Without looking too deeply one could argue it's related to the process of industrialisation.

https://localhistories.org/a-timeline-of-womens-rights-uk/

Here's the same chart for the USA. One very fair argument is that the fall in child mortality means you don't need to have as many children to replace the ones that died.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I never suggested it's a good idea to reduce women rights, I'm saying that the reason birthrate was higher in the past and is higher in some places at the moment is because women didn't/don't have rights, it has nothing to do with income.

Also, about your first point, I already covered that when I mentioned that those who are poor tend to have more kids than those who have the means to easily afford to have them. Hell, poor people have more kids than rich people who could stop working.

It's not about money or access to child care or social programs, it's about choice. When they're given the choice the vast majority of people don't want a family big enough for the population to renew itself, you'll find exceptions (I've got two colleagues who have four children each) but the average will still be under 2.1 if people can easily prevent unwanted pregnancies. There's nothing new to it either as I showed and if you look at historical data in first world country it's always the same pattern (no matter the quantity of social programs to help parents or the amount of parental leaves that they get) and we're seeing that pattern repeat itself in developing countries.

People just don't want kids if they can help it.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)

load more comments