Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "The Spanish Population Is Disappearing @visualeconomiken" video.

No, that's just a popular excuse. First off, poor people have more children, not less. And no, it's not just free labour as this also holds in cities as well as in countries with mandatory state provisioned schooling. Secondly, cash incentives and other public policies to reduce costs have had negligible impact on birth rates. Thirdly, there are groups that have large families still even at the same income and expense levels. One is highly religious communities - they tend to have more kids than their peers in similar economic situations. Fourthly, the ultra-rich also have few kids.
15
@sjg9887 That doesn't explain the poor or even the rich, nor the religious, all of whom buck that reasoning. It also doesn't explain why public programs to incentivize births have failed to make a dent in it.
6
An interesting point for you to ponder might be to ask some of your middle or upper class friends who say they'd like to have children just how many kids they'd like to have. This is just the subset of people who want kids, so it's already skewed. Still, you'll mostly hear 1, 2 or in a few cases 3 kids (unless they're highly religious or something). Now ask your great grandparents how large families used to be in the old days. You'll hear numbers like 5 - 12 or even more. Mine had 10 siblings! Yet almost no one wants such large families anymore even if money was not a factor. And keep in mind that the replacement level birth rate is 2.1, so fewer people choosing to have 1-2 kids is already below replacement. And you can see this in the ultra rich - money isn't a problem there, but they still usually have only small families.
5
They talked about immigration in the video. And why it just delays the inevitable by one generation, nothing more. They're also a net negative return in the long run.
4
@cwpv2477 No. First off, poor people have more children, not less. And no, it's not just free labour as this also holds in cities as well as in countries with mandatory state provisioned schooling. Secondly, cash incentives and other public policies to reduce costs have had negligible impact on birth rates. Thirdly, there are groups that have large families still even at the same income and expense levels. One is highly religious communities - they tend to have more kids than their peers in similar economic situations. Fourthly, the ultra-rich also have few kids.
3
@sjg9887 If you think you're desperate, try being a (non-us) boomer coming out of the 1940s that's just seen, you know. Evidently that didn't stop them from having kids. If you think we'll have more kids if only money wasn't an issue, tell that to the rich. Also tell the orthodox that they're not behaving in line with how your economics says they should. Your idea just doesn't fit the facts.
3
@cwpv2477 An interesting point for you to ponder might be to ask some of your middle or upper class friends who say they'd like to have children just how many kids they'd like to have. This is just the subset of people who want kids, so it's already skewed. Still, you'll mostly hear 1, 2 or in a few cases 3 kids (unless they're highly religious or something). Now ask your great grandparents how large families used to be in the old days. You'll hear numbers like 5 - 12 or even more. Mine had 10 siblings! Yet almost no one wants such large families anymore even if money was not a factor. And keep in mind that the replacement level birth rate is 2.1, so fewer people choosing to have 1-2 kids is already below replacement. And you can see this in the ultra rich - money isn't a problem there, but they still usually have only small families.
2
This isn't about govt. policy. First off, poor people have more children, not less. And no, it's not just free labour as this also holds in cities as well as in countries with mandatory state provisioned schooling. Secondly, cash incentives and other public policies to reduce costs have had negligible impact on birth rates. Thirdly, there are groups that have large families still even at the same income and expense levels. One is highly religious communities - they tend to have more kids than their peers in similar economic situations. Fourthly, the ultra-rich also have few kids.
2
An interesting point for you to ponder might be to ask some of your middle or upper class friends who say they'd like to have children just how many kids they'd like to have. This is just the subset of people who want kids, so it's already skewed. Still, you'll mostly hear 1, 2 or in a few cases 3 kids (unless they're highly religious or something). Now ask your great grandparents how large families used to be in the old days. You'll hear numbers like 5 - 12 or even more. Mine had 10 siblings! Yet almost no one wants such large families anymore even if money was not a factor. And keep in mind that the replacement level birth rate is 2.1, so fewer people choosing to have 1-2 kids is already below replacement. And you can see this in the ultra rich - money isn't a problem there, but they still usually have only small families.
1
@sjg9887 That doesn't explain the poor or even the rich, nor the religious, all of whom buck that reasoning. It also doesn't explain why public programs to incentivize births have failed to make a dent in it. If you think you're desperate, try being a (non-us) boomer coming out of a world war that's destroyed their world. Evidently that didn't stop them from having kids. If you think we'll have more kids if only money wasn't an issue, tell that to the rich. Also tell the orthodox that they're not behaving in line with how your economics says they should. And so on. Your idea just doesn't fit the facts.
1
@sjg9887 That doesn't explain the poor or even the rich, nor the religious, all of whom buck that reasoning. It also doesn't explain why public programs to incentivize births have failed to make a dent in it. If you think you're desperate, try being a (non-us) boomer coming out of the 1940s that's just seen, you know. Evidently that didn't stop them from having kids. If you think we'll have more kids if only money wasn't an issue, tell that to the rich. Also tell the orthodox that they're not behaving in line with how your economics says they should. Your idea just doesn't fit the facts.
1
@lightworker2956 It isn't about wealth in the first place. Did you not notice how I pointed out how certain communities buck that trend? Highly religious communities have more kids for instance, even when adjusting for socioeconomic status. There's a common element that both they and poor populations have in common, and it's not wealth. In fact it's something demographers have long said strongly influences birth rates, except they were talking about overpopulation at the time and now don't want to say it more cos it's VERY politically incorrect. Yes, education. Specifically women's education and empowerment. This is not news. This is literally standard orthodoxy in demography. They just used to say it was an effective way to curb overpopulation, so do it. But now that the goal is to get people to have more kids, not less, it becomes extremely uncomfortable. Highly orthodox groups tend to keep women at home. In most poor communities as well women take care of the home. That's the common element.
1
@DavidTichEnnis He's very much an exception. Check what the average number of kids the rich have. Especially ones that're in stable marriages rather than serial divorcees.
1
No it's got nothing to do with wages or house prices. First off, poor people have more children, not less. And no, it's not just free labour as this also holds in cities as well as in countries with mandatory state provisioned schooling. Secondly, cash incentives and other public policies to reduce costs have had negligible impact on birth rates. Thirdly, there are groups that have large families still even at the same income and expense levels. One is highly religious communities - they tend to have more kids than their peers in similar economic situations. Fourthly, the ultra-rich also have few kids.
1
An interesting point for you to ponder might be to ask some of your middle or upper class friends who say they'd like to have children just how many kids they'd like to have. This is just the subset of people who want kids, so it's already skewed. Still, you'll mostly hear 1, 2 or in a few cases 3 kids (unless they're highly religious or something). Now ask your great grandparents how large families used to be in the old days. You'll hear numbers like 5 - 12 or even more. Mine had 10 siblings! Yet almost no one wants such large families anymore even if money was not a factor. And keep in mind that the replacement level birth rate is 2.1, so fewer people choosing to have 1-2 kids is already below replacement. And you can see this in the ultra rich - money isn't a problem there, but they still usually have only small families.
1