Look at the historic birth rate in countries where where these things aren’t an issue and you’ll realize that unless you walk back on women rights and access to contraception, people won’t have enough babies to renew the population because they simple don’t want to have enough of them to do so.
There might be other factors at play. Deciding to have a child is a complex decision. But not having those things mentioned just makes the problem worse.
Also, speaking of historical facts. Even outlawing abortion and such doesn’t stop it. They travel or use risky methods. Or they put the kid up for adoption which leads to a massive spike in crime. Which is why roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade there was a drop in crime.
As I said, it’s just historical stats from a bunch of different countries that all show the same thing.
Both my sisters in law have three kids and get about $1.6k in financial help, super cheap childcare and free healthcare, they’re still in the minority of people who have 3 kids in Canada and most of the decline happened just as the pill was made legal and women started having rights and didn’t depend on their husband to, for example, open a bank account and at a time when buying a house wasn’t an issue.
Look at migrants from African countries, childbirth over there is super high, they move to a rich country and they don’t have as many kids as the average in their country of origin even though living conditions are better.
Acting like making peoples lives more comfortable will make them want to have kids is every more naive, that’s why I was replying in the first place. There’s plenty of reasons people don’t want them, women rights gives them even more reasons, women rights and contraception gives them the means to prevent it.
Lol, you’re clearly invested in one side and doing research in only one direction. There are plenty of reasons people would want kids too. There are plenty of reasons they don’t have kids that can be changed.
You also pick out a chart that conveniently only has things that support this view called out. Ignoring correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you think so, this site will blow your mind https://search.app/RrPkGZ5UpJcSrvHU9
I’m not here to change your mind, you’ve made it up. I’ve said my piece.
How in the fuck do you write “unless you walk back on women rights”? Like what happens in your mind that you actually post that for the public to see? Shame on you for that misogyny, you deserve a slap.
Also, where is this magical country where I don’t have to worry about wealth inequality and climate catastrophe?
You are absolutely arguing in bad faith, and for that, fuck you.
I never said it was acceptable to walk back on women rights, I said it’s something that people who want to see a higher birthrate will have to fight against because it’s not happening otherwise. I couldn’t give more of a crap about increasing birthrate, I won’t have kids by choice. I do give a fucking crap about women rights though!
I mentioned historical statistics because you can look back at times before climate change and wealth inequality worried anyone and birthrate was going down as women rights increased and contraception became readily available.
So, conclusion, if women are given the right to do more with their lives than being mothers and if contraceptives are made available, couples will make the decision not to have enough kids to renew the population, no matter how easy it is to have them, as we can see in all developed countries where socio economic inequality is lower than in the US. Scandinavian countries don’t renew their population without immigration and haven’t for a fucking long time, in Finland birthrate went below renewal rate before WW2 for fuck’s sake!
It’s the most horrendous correlation-is-causation I’ve ever seen.
And people outside US have it better, but the trajectory is mostly the same everywhere, so you’re just full of shit.
It’s not easy to have children ANYWHERE, and in most places it just too expensive or downright impossible due to childcare issues or tons of other things.
I’m talking about historic data and you’re unable to understand what that means in terms of variation in quality of life over time. Even when people could make it on a single income they didn’t have 2.1 kids if they had the means to prevent it.
Hell, millionaires and billionaires don’t have enough kids to renew the population either, but I guess you will find some way to not understand that either.
The average number of children among the 512 billionaires was 2.64, with US and Russian
billionaires having higher averages of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. The average number of children
was also higher among older billionaires, **ranging from 1.05 among billionaires aged less than 45 **
to 3.2 among billionaires aged over 75. Among female billionaires, the average number of
children was 2.41, while among males, it was slightly higher at 2.66. Tables 1-4 provide a detailed
breakdown of the data.
1.05 kids for the ones under 45, will you look at that, just like everyone else in their generation, they don’t have kids!
I have no clue if you’re a bot or just an unbearable asshole, but you are proving me right by showing that PEOPLE DECIDE NOT TO HAVE KIDS WHEN THE WORLD IS FUCKING BURNING, yet those who were born earlier and had all the contraception and womens rights HAD NO ISSUE WHEN THEY HAD THE WEALTH.
Look at the historic birth rate in countries where where these things aren’t an issue and you’ll realize that unless you walk back on women rights and access to contraception, people won’t have enough babies to renew the population because they simple don’t want to have enough of them to do so.
There might be other factors at play. Deciding to have a child is a complex decision. But not having those things mentioned just makes the problem worse.
Also, speaking of historical facts. Even outlawing abortion and such doesn’t stop it. They travel or use risky methods. Or they put the kid up for adoption which leads to a massive spike in crime. Which is why roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade there was a drop in crime.
As I said, it’s just historical stats from a bunch of different countries that all show the same thing.
Both my sisters in law have three kids and get about $1.6k in financial help, super cheap childcare and free healthcare, they’re still in the minority of people who have 3 kids in Canada and most of the decline happened just as the pill was made legal and women started having rights and didn’t depend on their husband to, for example, open a bank account and at a time when buying a house wasn’t an issue.
Look at migrants from African countries, childbirth over there is super high, they move to a rich country and they don’t have as many kids as the average in their country of origin even though living conditions are better.
Women rights. Contraception.
You call out all the reasons they should have a kid, like free healthcare. But ignore all the reasons why people don’t want to have kids.
You also ignore all the reasons why someone in a 3rd world country might have more kids. Like mortality rate, needing more hands for work, etc.
Yes contraception and reproductive rights are part of it. But acting like those are the only things it’s naive.
Acting like making peoples lives more comfortable will make them want to have kids is every more naive, that’s why I was replying in the first place. There’s plenty of reasons people don’t want them, women rights gives them even more reasons, women rights and contraception gives them the means to prevent it.
Lol, you’re clearly invested in one side and doing research in only one direction. There are plenty of reasons people would want kids too. There are plenty of reasons they don’t have kids that can be changed.
You also pick out a chart that conveniently only has things that support this view called out. Ignoring correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you think so, this site will blow your mind https://search.app/RrPkGZ5UpJcSrvHU9
I’m not here to change your mind, you’ve made it up. I’ve said my piece.
Thing is, when you see the same thing happen all over the world then saying “correlation doesn’t equal causation!” just makes you look dumb.
Damn, I didn’t know Canada was the whole world. My bad.
If you bother doing some research you’ll realize that the same thing is happening all over the world, but I know that’s too much to ask from you.
How in the fuck do you write “unless you walk back on women rights”? Like what happens in your mind that you actually post that for the public to see? Shame on you for that misogyny, you deserve a slap.
Also, where is this magical country where I don’t have to worry about wealth inequality and climate catastrophe?
You are absolutely arguing in bad faith, and for that, fuck you.
Reading comprehension much?
I never said it was acceptable to walk back on women rights, I said it’s something that people who want to see a higher birthrate will have to fight against because it’s not happening otherwise. I couldn’t give more of a crap about increasing birthrate, I won’t have kids by choice. I do give a fucking crap about women rights though!
I mentioned historical statistics because you can look back at times before climate change and wealth inequality worried anyone and birthrate was going down as women rights increased and contraception became readily available.
So, conclusion, if women are given the right to do more with their lives than being mothers and if contraceptives are made available, couples will make the decision not to have enough kids to renew the population, no matter how easy it is to have them, as we can see in all developed countries where socio economic inequality is lower than in the US. Scandinavian countries don’t renew their population without immigration and haven’t for a fucking long time, in Finland birthrate went below renewal rate before WW2 for fuck’s sake!
It’s the most horrendous correlation-is-causation I’ve ever seen.
And people outside US have it better, but the trajectory is mostly the same everywhere, so you’re just full of shit.
It’s not easy to have children ANYWHERE, and in most places it just too expensive or downright impossible due to childcare issues or tons of other things.
I’m talking about historic data and you’re unable to understand what that means in terms of variation in quality of life over time. Even when people could make it on a single income they didn’t have 2.1 kids if they had the means to prevent it.
Hell, millionaires and billionaires don’t have enough kids to renew the population either, but I guess you will find some way to not understand that either.
What the fuck are you on about?
“Billionares are parenting on average 2.99 children”
It’s you who mixes shit with stats and acting tough.
Shut up.
Wrong again
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369921158_Fertility_behavior_at_the_top_of_socioeconomic_hierarchy
1.05 kids for the ones under 45, will you look at that, just like everyone else in their generation, they don’t have kids!
I have no clue if you’re a bot or just an unbearable asshole, but you are proving me right by showing that PEOPLE DECIDE NOT TO HAVE KIDS WHEN THE WORLD IS FUCKING BURNING, yet those who were born earlier and had all the contraception and womens rights HAD NO ISSUE WHEN THEY HAD THE WEALTH.
GTFO
You think billionaires care about the world turning to shit? It doesn’t affect them!