No-Fault Divorce greatly ncreased the risks with having children in marriage because of the increased likelihood of ending up a single parent.
Every additional child makes single parenthood significantly more difficult.
Therefore, the legalization of No-Fault Divorce caused the marital TFR to drop.
However, few married people would explicitly admit that they're having fewer children because of fear of divorce. So they'll give alternative explanations.
Similar to how executives retire early "to spend more time with their family".
It is one strong consideration. Many kids meant many hands for farm work. The most significant factor I think that changed family size is the introduction of birth control. There were natural methods through history, but the Catholic church encouraged nonstop breeding by women. They really were barefoot and pregnant by the stove; their lives were so full of hardship. Women could finally avail of higher education by delaying childbirth. We have 8 billion people on the planet, I don't see any advantage in having 20 billion, particularly in this technological age. I am hearing of so many young people losing their jobs recently because of AI and this is only the beginning.
“…I don't see any advantage in having 20 billion…”
Nor does the author, I would believe. What is used for illustration are German stat’s, not world stat’s. Western countries probably are best describe by the German stat’s, other countries not so much. Africa for example. What we are seeing by the author’s graphs/argument is a decline and perhaps an elimination of what we might term Western civilization. Our replacements arriving daily from third world countries.
The world could be a better place with less human population, but does this mean we should eliminate ourselves to correct for other nations that contribute excess population? Because that’s exactly what will happen with sub-2.0 Western birth rates.
I think this administration has stymied the flow into the U.S. Europe needs to follow suit. Pushing natives to simply have many more children as a solution is fraught with problems, on so many levels. So that isn't the answer. Perhaps one day third world countries will become more educated and modern, they have so many natural resources, that are exploited by the rest of the world.
I think you missed my point. If the USA simply had a birth rate of 2.1, then there would be no decline and no growth. You seem to think that no decline equals growth. But that has not been the case for 50+ years. Our growth in population is due to growth in migrants. Migrants are not simply those who cross the border illegally, but also the .7M we allow in each year legally. Additionally family reunification allow those here who become citizens or permanent residents to bring in family members, multiplying their numbers well past 1.2M. As of 2023 14+% of the US population was foreign born. Grade school enrollment of first and second generation students exceeds traditional native born.
You still have not answered why, the Western world needs to decline in population while the rest of the world does not? Europe and the English speaking—my definition of Western world—have a total of 1.2B people, or about 15% of the worlds population, yet you want/desire a decline of that low percentage?
No thank you. I prefer my people and culture to survive.
I think a global population explosion is unsustainable in terms of resources. The U.S. is a melting pot, and liberal U.S. citizens generally don't resent some influx of legal immigrants. Also, many migrants support the farming economies in various states. I think white Europeans are uncomfortable with the cultural shifts that are occurring due to the absorption of people from other countries. I think the feeling is natural, yet everything changes.
Again, missing my point at best, ignoring the essence of my argument at worst. The “melting pot” is wrt to a limited amount of immigrants. 1.2M is not going to change the world, nor should we—the USA—be asked to by taking in all comers (immigrants), or reducing our birth rate—which is already *below* replacement level, and has been for at least 2 generations. Further, the “great migrations” of the past were from European nations, primarily Judeo-Christian in religion and culture. Few of the current “migrants” meet this criteria. Such influx, in such numbers is a recipe for civil strife. Much has been written on such and researched.
As to “we need farm workers”, that a tired old, and ill-informed, argument. The updated version, fyi, is that we need H1-b VISA’s for tech workers or we (USA) will fall behind the rest of the world. All disingenuous arguments, usually based on financial gain by employers who shift the cost of such to society in general.
I really am not in the business, nor is it possible, to change your world view. Whenever I point out inconsistency in your logic, you simply “change the subject” and move on to another ill-informed point to support your viewpoint. I will respond no more to any rebuttals you post. Good day to you.
Consider this alternative hypothesis:
No-Fault Divorce greatly ncreased the risks with having children in marriage because of the increased likelihood of ending up a single parent.
Every additional child makes single parenthood significantly more difficult.
Therefore, the legalization of No-Fault Divorce caused the marital TFR to drop.
However, few married people would explicitly admit that they're having fewer children because of fear of divorce. So they'll give alternative explanations.
Similar to how executives retire early "to spend more time with their family".
In Germany, no fault divorce was created in 1976, so no
It is one strong consideration. Many kids meant many hands for farm work. The most significant factor I think that changed family size is the introduction of birth control. There were natural methods through history, but the Catholic church encouraged nonstop breeding by women. They really were barefoot and pregnant by the stove; their lives were so full of hardship. Women could finally avail of higher education by delaying childbirth. We have 8 billion people on the planet, I don't see any advantage in having 20 billion, particularly in this technological age. I am hearing of so many young people losing their jobs recently because of AI and this is only the beginning.
“…I don't see any advantage in having 20 billion…”
Nor does the author, I would believe. What is used for illustration are German stat’s, not world stat’s. Western countries probably are best describe by the German stat’s, other countries not so much. Africa for example. What we are seeing by the author’s graphs/argument is a decline and perhaps an elimination of what we might term Western civilization. Our replacements arriving daily from third world countries.
The world could be a better place with less human population, but does this mean we should eliminate ourselves to correct for other nations that contribute excess population? Because that’s exactly what will happen with sub-2.0 Western birth rates.
I think this administration has stymied the flow into the U.S. Europe needs to follow suit. Pushing natives to simply have many more children as a solution is fraught with problems, on so many levels. So that isn't the answer. Perhaps one day third world countries will become more educated and modern, they have so many natural resources, that are exploited by the rest of the world.
I think you missed my point. If the USA simply had a birth rate of 2.1, then there would be no decline and no growth. You seem to think that no decline equals growth. But that has not been the case for 50+ years. Our growth in population is due to growth in migrants. Migrants are not simply those who cross the border illegally, but also the .7M we allow in each year legally. Additionally family reunification allow those here who become citizens or permanent residents to bring in family members, multiplying their numbers well past 1.2M. As of 2023 14+% of the US population was foreign born. Grade school enrollment of first and second generation students exceeds traditional native born.
You still have not answered why, the Western world needs to decline in population while the rest of the world does not? Europe and the English speaking—my definition of Western world—have a total of 1.2B people, or about 15% of the worlds population, yet you want/desire a decline of that low percentage?
No thank you. I prefer my people and culture to survive.
I think a global population explosion is unsustainable in terms of resources. The U.S. is a melting pot, and liberal U.S. citizens generally don't resent some influx of legal immigrants. Also, many migrants support the farming economies in various states. I think white Europeans are uncomfortable with the cultural shifts that are occurring due to the absorption of people from other countries. I think the feeling is natural, yet everything changes.
“U.S. is a melting pot,…”
Again, missing my point at best, ignoring the essence of my argument at worst. The “melting pot” is wrt to a limited amount of immigrants. 1.2M is not going to change the world, nor should we—the USA—be asked to by taking in all comers (immigrants), or reducing our birth rate—which is already *below* replacement level, and has been for at least 2 generations. Further, the “great migrations” of the past were from European nations, primarily Judeo-Christian in religion and culture. Few of the current “migrants” meet this criteria. Such influx, in such numbers is a recipe for civil strife. Much has been written on such and researched.
As to “we need farm workers”, that a tired old, and ill-informed, argument. The updated version, fyi, is that we need H1-b VISA’s for tech workers or we (USA) will fall behind the rest of the world. All disingenuous arguments, usually based on financial gain by employers who shift the cost of such to society in general.
I really am not in the business, nor is it possible, to change your world view. Whenever I point out inconsistency in your logic, you simply “change the subject” and move on to another ill-informed point to support your viewpoint. I will respond no more to any rebuttals you post. Good day to you.
Primary factor is that women are not dependent on men anymore. If this is not fixed, nothing else will work.