It seems pretty straight forward that the birth control pill, and the increased expectations for women to enter the workforce that came with the feminist wave to follow, is what tanked birth rates.
The birth rate dropped off quickly after the pill was approved by the FDA in 1960.
With more workers, wages get suppressed. With more single person households, housing prices go up as supply is strained. Dual income households becoming the norm means increased childcare costs.
It all seems connected, but it seems few want to talk about it... so we end up with articles like this about people desperately trying to blame it on men not doing dishes.
It wasn't long ago when most of the public seemed absolutely convinced that the world is "overpopulated" and "unsustainable" and that it was absolutely urgent and incumbent on everyone to do their part to depopulate the world, somehow, some way. The overpopulation hypothesis was used to advance many policies.
There was a small minority who insisted that overpopulation was a myth, and that we shouldn't be worried about it. And it seemed that without any fuss, most thinkpieces have come around to this view that now the TFR rates are dropping irreversibly and precipitously, and also that these drops are pretty bad news for the economy in particular.
It's like all the global heating denialists and the global cooling true believers got together and accepted global warming as truth, all of a sudden.
Trying to turn the blame on "men" is just icing on the cake, chef kiss, well done Atlantic!
In and of itself, a smaller population ain't so bad.
What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions.
Shrinking families mean that there aren't enough children of elders to care for them directly, so those elders are leaning on welfare states, and mercenary caregivers, instead. It isn't working out.
> the theory does not appear to be true. The data simply do not support it.
I'm not sure what the point of this article is.
Going on the title, I think it's to blame men.
the lesson of 2016 is that gender conflict gets clicks
A negative result is still a result, but it would be better if they didn't work so hard to prove Betteridge's Law correct while they were at it.
It seems pretty straight forward that the birth control pill, and the increased expectations for women to enter the workforce that came with the feminist wave to follow, is what tanked birth rates.
The birth rate dropped off quickly after the pill was approved by the FDA in 1960.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
With more workers, wages get suppressed. With more single person households, housing prices go up as supply is strained. Dual income households becoming the norm means increased childcare costs.
It all seems connected, but it seems few want to talk about it... so we end up with articles like this about people desperately trying to blame it on men not doing dishes.
It wasn't long ago when most of the public seemed absolutely convinced that the world is "overpopulated" and "unsustainable" and that it was absolutely urgent and incumbent on everyone to do their part to depopulate the world, somehow, some way. The overpopulation hypothesis was used to advance many policies.
There was a small minority who insisted that overpopulation was a myth, and that we shouldn't be worried about it. And it seemed that without any fuss, most thinkpieces have come around to this view that now the TFR rates are dropping irreversibly and precipitously, and also that these drops are pretty bad news for the economy in particular.
It's like all the global heating denialists and the global cooling true believers got together and accepted global warming as truth, all of a sudden.
Trying to turn the blame on "men" is just icing on the cake, chef kiss, well done Atlantic!
It's because the "natalists" are pushing the issue for political reasons. They've made it a culture war thing.
A declining birthrate is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.
not if you want consumption -- and therefore, stock prices -- to go up
if there is 100 million less people there is 100 million less people to sell an iPhone too
In and of itself, a smaller population ain't so bad.
What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions.
Shrinking families mean that there aren't enough children of elders to care for them directly, so those elders are leaning on welfare states, and mercenary caregivers, instead. It isn't working out.
[dead]