[Decky]

Conservatives do everything in the world that they can to make the working class as poor as possible (no rent controls, anti union laws, shitty min wage etc) and then they act as if it is some shock that nobody can afford to have any kids. God knows what goes on in right wing people's heads. What was it they were expecting to happen? Some enormous population boom when people can't even afford to go to the pub everyday anymore like the baby boomers did?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Conservatives do everything in the world that they can to make the working class as poor as possible (no rent controls, anti union laws, shitty min wage etc) and then they act as if it is some shock that nobody can afford to have any kids. God knows what goes on in right wing people's heads. What was it they were expecting to happen? :?: Some enormous population boom when people can't even afford to go to the pub everyday anymore like the baby boomers did?

Birth rates go down with more education (and hence more income), so the idea that people have no babies because they can't afford it seems just silly.

Women without children by education:



This is also true across countries. As countries get richer, birth rates tend to go down.

[Decky]

Birth rates go down with more education (and hence more income), so the idea that people have no babies because they can't afford it seems just silly.

Women without children by education:



This is also true across countries. As countries get richer, birth rates tend to go down.

Higher income people have fewer children as homosexuality is far more prevalent with the soft handed office "workers" than it is for real men. Everyone knows that, it's common knowledge. All the posh men are busy with each other which reduces the birth rate for the idle classes.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Higher income people have fewer children as homosexuality is far more prevalent with the soft handed office "workers" than it is for real men. Everyone knows that, it's common knowledge. All the posh men are busy with each other which reduces the birth rate for the idle classes.

This is a ridiculous proposition.

Homosexuals do not represent a large enough demographic foot-print to offset "normal birth rates" in any one class in a nation to account for the lower average birthrate.

Even if 50% of the population of any one class was queer, and the other half produced at just over replacement at 3 children per woman, only then would the average for the class be where it currently has been hovering in the western world (1.5 children per woman). However, this requires the homosexual population to be at 50% of the total.

The actual representation of LGBT of the entire U.S. population is like 4.0%. This population being childless is not statistically "significant" in explaining the overall low birth rate of the west.

Rather, if anything, a social climate that gravitates against viewing sex as primarily for procreative purposes would better serve to explain an increasing rate in decadent sexual preference and lifestyles, including homosexuality. That would be far more reasonable to assume than what you are suggesting here.

[Rancid]

The evidence is clear. We need to keep women stupid is that they have more babies.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Higher income people have fewer children as homosexuality is far more prevalent with the soft handed office "workers" than it is for real men. Everyone knows that, it's common knowledge. All the posh men are busy with each other which reduces the birth rate for the idle classes.

Very interesting theory, Decky, but wrong again.

The very wealthy have higher birth rates than the middle class.

[layman]

Birth rates are mainly about education, especially female education, and infant mortality. That is, on a global scale.

When we get into the fine detail in advanced economies then the middle seem to have less than the poor and rich. Financial incentives are surely the prime suspects here for the obvious reasons.

Childcare is very expensive and surviving one a single earner is increasingly difficult when trying to maintain middle class trappings.

[Crantag]

Some people on here have trouble distinguishing between a generalizable trend and a distinct phenomenon. Birth rates have not declined since 2008 because people have more money and are better educated.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

What the Amish and the Shakers can teach us about demographics

You may not be familiar with the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing, but evidence of their handiwork is everywhere. Indeed, you may be able to see it for yourself in your own home. The United Society, better known as the Shakers, became famous for their plain, but elegant, craftsmanship. Shaker style furniture remains popular to this day, but Shakerism itself rather less so.

Even at the sect’s mid-19th century zenith, there were never more than six thousand of them – today there are two. No, not two thousand, two: Brother Arnold Hadd and Sister June Carpenter.1

The Amish are another US-based religious denomination. In 1920 there were roughly five thousand in number. Today, estimates put the Amish population at more than 300,000.2

The Shakers and the Amish are both part of the non-conformist Protestant tradition – whose ancestors fled Europe for the Americas the 17th and 18th centuries. Both are counted among the ‘plain people’ – Christian groups who reject the fashions and conveniences of the modern world, who dress simply and who often live in close-knit communities apart from mainstream society.

A demographic divergence

The Shakers and the Amish, therefore, have a lot in common, but their fortunes have diverged spectacularly – the latter flourishing while the former have dwindled to near extinction.

Ultimately this is about sex, not sects. Though the Shakers lived in mixed communities, where women had equal status to men, they also practiced universal life-long celibacy. Even when they were growing in number, it was only through recruitment from the outside world.

The Amish could hardly be more different. Very few outsiders join their communities – not least because of the language barrier (the Amish still speak the ‘Pennsylvania Dutch’3 of their ancestors and related dialects). However, unlike the Shakers, they get married, stay married and have lots of children.

Furthermore, most of those children choose, as young adults, to stay with the Amish church (and, therefore, the community).4 This is despite – or, perhaps, because of – an Amish tradition called the rumspringa,5 in which youngsters venture for a time into the ‘English’ world (i.e. non-Amish America). They then decide whether to stay there or return to be baptised as a full member of the church.

Retention rates are said to be higher now than they’ve ever been. Apparently smartphones and vaping aren’t viewed as an acceptable substitute for purpose, structure and community.

The Amish expansion

All of this translates into a rapid rate of population growth. The rule-of-thumb is that Amish numbers double every generation.6 Because they prefer to live in smaller communities of about 30 families, population growth requires the founding of new settlements. When your way of life doesn’t depend on close connections with the global economy (quite the opposite, in fact) this isn’t so difficult. There is plenty of cheap farmland to be had for from America’s big cities. Remarkably, of the 500 or so Amish settlements, about half were founded in the 21st century.7


If the Amish keep doubling their numbers for another century, then there will be eight million of them. If they keep it up for two centuries, America will be a majority Amish nation. Credit: William Thomas Cain / Stringer, Getty

The internet was supposed to have conquered the tyranny of distance. Instead, the ‘knowledge workers’ of the world find themselves competing for cramped living quarters in a limited number of global cities. Meanwhile, the Amish, who deliberately and severely limit their use of digital technologies can take their pick of America’s wide open spaces. How’s that for an irony?

The Amish and the Shakers represent opposite extremes of the demographic spectrum – and provide a living (and dying) demonstration of the idea that ‘demographics is destiny’. We can look at the Shakers and boggle at their lack of foresight, but let’s not forget that birthrates throughout most of North America, Europe and East Asia are well below what’s required to replace the existing population. Like the Shakers, we too are committing demographic suicide – albeit more slowly.

From tiny acorns

Birthrates aren’t uniform, however. Some groups within each nation tend to have more children than others – the Amish being a noteworthy example. We might assume that doesn’t matter. After all, given a US population of more than 300 million people, what difference can an isolated group of 300,000 make?

Quite a lot as it happens.

There’s a old story about an emperor who wished to reward a merchant who had done him a great service. “Name anything you desire,” said the emperor. The merchant produced a chessboard and asked for one grain of rice to be placed on the first square, two grains on the second square, four grains on the third and so forth – the number of grains doubling each time for every square on the board. “Is that all that you want,” asked the emperor, “a few piles of rice?” It wasn’t until the 17th square that more than a kilogram of rice was required. But by 27th square, it was more than a tonne – and by the 32nd square more than 40 tonnes.8 It was then that the emperor realised that he’d been had. The second half of the chessboard would drain the empire, indeed the whole world, many times over – or it might have done had the emperor not chopped the merchant’s head off for being a clever dick.

The point of this pretty tale is that exponential growth matters. Obviously, the Amish can’t continue doubling their numbers every generation forever. But if they keep it up for another century then there will be eight million of them. If they keep it up for two centuries, America will be a majority Amish nation. Even today, their numbers are big enough in some parts of the country for campaigners to go after their votes – as the existence of Amish PAC attests.

Of course, that assumes not only that the Amish continue to grow at their current rate, but also that no one else keeps pace with them. In fact, there are a few other groups in America with above average fertility – the Mormons,9 for instance. One can imagine a Mormon majority expanding outwards from Utah, while an Amish majority does so from rural Pennsylvania – until they meet somewhere in the middle. If war breaks out, it’ll be a rather one-sided one – the Amish are pacifists.

Decline and fall?

Admittedly, this is a rather extreme scenario, but then we live in extreme times. Keeping a population stable requires a fertility rate of just above two. It is below that across the western world and still falling. It is 1.6 in Canada, 1.5 in Germany, 1.4 in Spain, 1.3 in Greece, 1.2 in Taiwan.10 A fertility rate of 1.41, by the way, means that the size of each new generation halves every two generations.

Immigration can help stave off population decline, though the flip-side, i.e. emigration, can accelerate decline elsewhere. It’s also worth noting that, in America, the birth rate among the immigrant population is declining even faster than among the US-born population.11

We should of course, be grateful for the choices that we have in a liberal society. We are free to marry or not get married. We are free to have children or not have children. There are lifestyles and occupations open to us that are not open to people (especially women) in less liberal societies. And yet, by definition, the only cultures that will survive into the centuries ahead are those that reproduce themselves.

It is said that history is made by those who turn up. But it’s equally true that the future belongs to those who have children.

[Unthinking Majority]

Higher income people have fewer children as homosexuality is far more prevalent with the soft handed office "workers" than it is for real men. Everyone knows that, it's common knowledge. All the posh men are busy with each other which reduces the birth rate for the idle classes.

Higher income people are more intelligent and make better decisions, while lower income people can more often be absolute morons who don't use birth control because they're less educated & frankly dumb and sometimes drunk/high. Higher incomes can also afford birth control more easily. The single-motherhood rate for poor people is much higher too. 70% of black children in the USA are born to single mothers. That's a crazy statistic.

[One Degree]

Higher income people are more intelligent and make better decisions, while lower income people can more often be absolute morons who don't use birth control because they're less educated & frankly dumb and sometimes drunk/high. Higher incomes can also afford birth control more easily. The single-motherhood rate for poor people is much higher too. 70% of black children in the USA are born to single mothers. That's a crazy statistic.

It is a crazy statistic, but it belongs in a separate paragraph. Only 27% of Blacks live below poverty level so 70% of births to single mothers can not be attributed solely to poverty.

[Godstud]

Being rich does not equate to being smart and vice versa. Less moral people, however, do tend to be richer.

Poverty and malnutrition factor in, as well,like in One Degrees mention of single black mothers.

[colliric]

Being rich does not equate to being smart and vice versa. Less moral people, however, do tend to be richer.

Poverty and malnutrition factor in, as well,like in One Degrees mention of single black mothers.

Your post reminds me of "It's easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a Rich man to get into heaven."

Though of cause that teaching had hidden meaning....

The Camel gate in Jerusalem was called the "Needle" because it was tiny(only allowed one camel at a time).... It was a Customs gate... You had to unload everything first so they could check it before your camel could go through. Lol. Jesus is telling you to unload all your earthly goods first.

[Godstud]

I wasn't making a reference to anything Christian.

I am sure many rich people want to rationalize it in that way, but he didn't say, "Though THE needle.", He said, "The eye OF a needle".

The guy stating the Amish are going to be a majority is hilarious. Other people are ALSO breeding, so this could only happen if everyone else were to stop.

[colliric]

I wasn't making a reference to anything Christian.

I am sure many rich people want to rationalize it in that way, but he didn't say, "Though THE needle.", He said, "The eye OF a needle".

The guy stating the Amish are going to be a majority is hilarious. Other people are ALSO breeding, so this could only happen if everyone else were to stop.

I know you weren't. I was simply pointing out how it reminded me of it.

Also the fact Jesus was potentially referring to the Jerusalem(or Damascus as some believe) Camel Gate, an ancient customs gate, is well known. The fact he's talking about a Camel & marrying it to a sewing needle in the first place is just plain odd(even if the point is still made). Typical Jewish Rabbi, his statement had dual meaning.....



And earlier he tells the Young Rich man asking the question to sell(/unload) all his goods if he wants to be part of the Kingdom of God.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Here's an interactive map of fertility (among other variables) in England and Wales from 1850 to 1910.

When looking at total fertility rate and total marital fertility rate you have to subtract 1-2 children from the numbers shown, as the average marriage age was higher (>25 years) than assumed by the definition of those variables. Click on the question mark next to TMFR to see this explained and how the numbers are estimated.

It's surprising how low the TFR actually was back then, basically between 3 and 4 for most of the period and then dropping to 2-3. I was also somewhat surprised by the high average marriage age, although this is apparently a well established pattern in NW Europe.

[Unthinking Majority]

It is a crazy statistic, but it belongs in a separate paragraph. Only 27% of Blacks live below poverty level so 70% of births to single mothers can not be attributed solely to poverty.

Define the poverty level. It's a very low income, like full-time on minimum wage. The average black person is still poorer than the average white.

And yes there's probably more to it than poverty. But poorly educated people with poor developmental environment growing up = less intelligent people making less intelligent decisions.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

White-ness itself is ill defined. It was historically used in early modern times as merely a distinction between African slaves and free, potentially slave holding European Americans with this distinction being the color of your skin. However if it is merely the color of your skin that determines white-ness, then a large portion of Europe wouldn't be considered white and a large portion of say the Middle East would be considered white.

In my opinion, it is American culture which is more valuable than race. An America with a white majority but no American culture is not America, but an America with American culture with say a black majority is America because it is a matter of values not race which makes America what it is.

[Suntzu]

I wasn't making a reference to anything Christian.

I am sure many rich people want to rationalize it in that way, but he didn't say, "Though THE needle.", He said, "The eye OF a needle".

The guy stating the Amish are going to be a majority is hilarious. Other people are ALSO breeding, so this could only happen if everyone else were to stop.

The needle was a sewing needle.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Being rich does not equate to being smart and vice versa. Less moral people, however, do tend to be richer.

It's interesting how you phrase this, as you could swap "rich" and "less moral" and the result would still be true, i.e.

Being rich does not equate to being less moral and vice versa. Smarter people, however, do tend to be richer.