Make sure that the Birthrates of these countries don't fall after WWII and how it affects things.
Actually, it isn't. The biggest influence on shrinking birthrates is higher standards of living. If you want them to stay high, the best way is to reduce standards of living. So, postwar, you want less economic growth & more poverty.oreocruncher said:Roll back women's rights and education...that's considered the biggest contributor towards lower birthrates...
Make sure that the Birthrates of these countries don't fall after WWII and how it affects things.
Doubtful. Many if not most women were working in the 19th century and earlier and the families were a lot bigger than they are now (and the wages a lot lower).The real reason is economic reasons. Women went into the workforce mainly to support their husbands whose wages were starting to be less and less reliable over time. Reverse that and we are good to go.
Make sure that the Birthrates of these countries don't fall after WWII and how it affects things.
1800 1,342
1810 1,358
1820 1,295
1830 1,145
1840 1,085
1840 1,085
1850 892
1860 905
1870 814
1880 780
1890 685
1900 666
1910 631
1920 604
1930 506
1940 419
1950 580
1960 717
1970 507
1980 385 **
1990 375 **
2000 370 **
2010 391 **
The real reason is economic reasons. Women went into the workforce mainly to support their husbands whose wages were starting to be less and less reliable over time. Reverse that and we are good to go.
The real reason is economic reasons. Women went into the workforce mainly to support their husbands whose wages were starting to be less and less reliable over time. Reverse that and we are good to go.
Its all about making it easy and cheap to have kids. Halfway sexual equality tends to make this harder since women are expected to both work and provide the vast majority of childcare and house work. Full sexual equality, OTOH, makes it easier since men pick up an equal share of childcare and house work.
Prevent the sexual revolution. If the pill never gets invented than contraception is going to be not nearly as effective. It won't fix everything in of itself, but having traditional mores about sex and family would make the decline shallower.
...
For instance: the US Census published a table of "Children aged 0-4 per 1,000 women aged 20-44", covering the census years from 1800 to 1970.
** From 1800 through 1970, the Census reported separate figures for white and black women; the white figures are given. For 1980 through 2010 the figures were constructed from Census reports, which did not separate white and black.Code:1800 1,342 1810 1,358 1820 1,295 1830 1,145 1840 1,085 1840 1,085 1850 892 1860 905 1870 814 1880 780 1890 685 1900 666 1910 631 1920 604 1930 506 1940 419 1950 580 1960 717 1970 507 1980 385 ** 1990 375 ** 2000 370 ** 2010 391 **
From what I can tell, there have been similar declines elsewhere, except in some (not all) Middle Eastern and African countries. In 22 countries, fertility (children/woman) declined at least 30% from 1995 to 2010; in almost half of the 70 largest countries, it was 2.33 or less.
In addition, 2010 fertility was under 2.0 in 25 countries.
I don't understand what is driving this trend, except that it is common to countries as different South Korea (down to 1.22), Syria (down 54% to 3.02), South Africa (down 46% to 2.33), Canada (down to 1.58), and Peru (down 23% to 2.32).
Have you not been paying attention? This has been going on since about 1850 (if not sooner). The standards of living are rising, & since it's now possible to survive with fewer children & have a better life after retirement/into old age with fewer, & since fewer kids split the pie fewer ways, fewer kids are conceived. Large numbers of kids used to be an economic asset. Now, they're a disaster.Anarch said:I don't understand what is driving this trend...
Without knowing what the cause is, I can't hope to imagine anything that could change it.
Have you not been paying attention? This has been going on since about 1850 (if not sooner). The standards of living are rising, & since it's now possible to survive with fewer children & have a better life after retirement/into old age with fewer, & since fewer kids split the pie fewer ways, fewer kids are conceived. Large numbers of kids used to be an economic asset. Now, they're a disaster.
This makes nonsense of the neo-Malthusian fantasies of the green zealots (& with more than 200yr of data & experience to prove Malthus wrong, I really do wonder why they continue to believe him).
That sounds very much like the greens. They want to keep theirs, take away everyone else's, & be in charge--just like every other revolutionary, from Washington to Mao.strangecircus said:Selfishness. Most people want to keep what they have and more people means they lose what they have.