Posted on 02/27/2008 7:06:01 AM PST by Uncledave
Why are People Having Fewer Kids?
Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much.
Ronald Bailey | February 26, 2008
The "demographic winter" is coming. So warns a new documentary of the same name. What is the demographic winter? The phrase, according to the film's promotional materials, "denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as the 'birth dearth,' and what that portends." The first half of Demographic Winter was previewed at the conservative Heritage Foundation a couple of weeks ago. According the film, the demographic winter augurs little good, e.g., economic collapse and social deterioration. If current trends continue world population should begin a steep decline sometime around the middle of the 21st century. Why?
Because total fertility rates (TFRs) are plummeting around the world. Population stability is achieved when each woman bears an average of 2.1 kids over the course of her lifetime—one for her, one for her male partner, and a little overage to make up to childhood deaths. Today, there are sixty countries in which TFRs are below 2.1. For example, the European Union's TFR is 1.5 and no EU member state has a TFR at replacement or above. Even high population developing countries have seen steep declines in fertility. Since 1970, China's TFR fell from 5.8 to 1.6; India's from 5.8 to 2.9; Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.4; Japan's from 2.0 to 1.3; Mexico's from 6.8 to 2.4; Brazil's from 5.4 to 2.3; and South Africa's from 5.9 to 2.7. The U.S. TFR dropped from 2.55 in 1970 to around 2.1 today, largely because of the influx of higher fertility immigrants. However, the fertility of second generation Americans drops to the level of longer established Americans.
I doubt that the "demographic winter" portends economic collapse or social deterioration, but let us set that aside for this column, and instead ask why people are choosing to have fewer children? After all, voluntary childlessness seems to violate the Darwinian premise that our genes dispose us, like all other creatures, to try to reproduce.
However, demographic data are undercutting the notion that there is some kind of sociobiological nurturing imperative, economist and demographer Nicholas Eberstadt noted during the question period following the documentary. As evidence, he pointed to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, where 30 percent of women are childless and that Hong Kong's TFR has been below 1 birth per woman for at least a decade.
Demographic Winter asserts that "every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness." And surely they are right. Modern societies offer people many other satisfactions and choices outside of the family. In particular women find that their time becomes more highly valued in occupations outside the home. There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have. Eberstadt also noted the best predictor of fertility levels is the desired family size as reported by women. And finally, the most profound event of the 20th century may have been the sexual revolution's drive toward gender equality, enabled by modern contraception. Unlike other creatures, people can have the fun of sex without the side effect of parenthood.
So, modernity essentially transforms children from capital goods that produce family income into consumption items to be enjoyed for their own sakes, more akin to sculptures, paintings, or theatre. But that's just the problem—according to happiness researchers, people don't really enjoy rearing children.
"Economists have modeled the impact of many variables on people's overall happiness and have consistently found that children have only a small impact. A small negative impact," reports Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Daniel Gilbert. In addition, the more children a person has the less happy they are. According to Gilbert, researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than taking care of their kids. "Indeed, looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework," asserts Gilbert in his bestselling, Stumbling on Happiness (2006).
Of course, that's not what most parents say when asked. For instance, in a 2007 Pew Research Center survey people insisted that their relationships with their little darlings are of the greatest importance to their personal happiness and fulfillment. However, the same survey also found "by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the 'mutual happiness and fulfillment' of adults rather than the 'bearing and raising of children.'"
Gilbert suggests that people claim their kids are their chief source of happiness largely because it's what they are expected to say. In addition, Gilbert observes that the more people pay for an item, the more highly they tend to value it and children are expensive, even if you don't throw in piano lessons, soccer camps, orthodonture, and college tuitions. Gilbert further notes that the more children people have, the less happy they tend to be. Since that is the case, it is not surprising that people are choosing to have fewer children. And if people with fewer children are happier, then people with no children must be happiest, right? Not exactly, but the data do suggest that voluntarily childless women and men are not less happy than parents. And they sure do have more money to squander as they try to pursue what happiness they can and strive to somehow fill up their allegedly empty lives.
Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily childless lifestyle too much.
Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.
I like where this thread is going.
Politically, this seems to divide the world up into the two camps who are reproducing beyond replacement rate: Christians and Muslims.
And if we had the will to end illegal immigration, liberals will have died off as a majority within 20 years.
Of course, it makes you look shallow and self-centered.
I don’t have any studies to back this up, just my observations, but—it seems to me that lots of parents would be happier if they’d just discipline their kids and set healthy limits to their behavior. I know it’s not politically correct to say that, but it must be hard to enjoy the results of letting them run rough-shod over everyone, including the parents, especially once they’re in their teens and even MORE difficult to manage.
It also seems to me that a lot of parents have children because it’s chic to have kids. They dress them up and show them off at the mall, but when it comes time to do the real work with them, they’re MIA.
Neither of these observations are true of all parents, but I do see it all too often.
Unfortunately many don’t want the responsibility of children.
When I am forced next to their ill mannered kids in stores and restarants, I don't like them very much either.
It might, but consider it a blessing that they didn’t have kids if that’s the case. Shallow, self-centered people usually make lousy parents.
I do not!
Of course, that's not what most parents say when asked.
Speaks for itself.
Wait until they get older, the state will take their money and determine the best care needed for them.
Am I wrong?
Is it true that EVERY bad thing that occurs can be traced to some liberal policy?
Even your reference to ill mannered kids - “self esteem” movement, non-punishment movement, “wouldn’t want to break their spirits” movement - all _liberal_ ideas, all bad.
IMO, people are not having children because of oppressive nanny government agencies. When a person cannot discipline his/her child without fear of being reported to CPS for ‘abuse’, it’s a fairly strong dis-incentive.
I believe it is because the self-centered types no longer need to have kids to help them work the farms or the family business, so they just don't have them.
My daughter will turn 21 this year, and she has "gotten it" since getting her own apartment.
My oldest son will soon be 19, and we're having major motivational issues with him. At this time, he will be attending New Mexico Military Institute, in the military, or looking for a new place to sleep (that is, if he doesn't shake himself out of his stupor). I would prefer that he take care of his business, i.e. study hard in college, but he thinks I'm just ragging on him. I no longer see any wisdom or value in throwing good money after bad.
Son #2 just turned six, and he's been the one keeping a smile on my face. I have six more good years before his hormones start kicking in.
They all drive me crazy, but I wouldn't change a thing.
Hm. So parents say one thing, but Gilbert knows they’re lying.... How does he know that?
My sentiments exactly — Child as Plaything gets really old really fast. Not to mention the number of us whose walk through the grocery store, the mall, the airport, and even the International Car Show is impeded by screaming, thrashing, flailing small fry whose parents are standing by helplessly wringing their hands. Last weekend on the way between buildings at the Car Show we encountered one of these Pampered Darlings whose roars could be heard for half a city block; the general comment was “Oh, NOW I remember why I never had kids!” or “The poster child for birth control.” People without kids see this kind of nightmare and congratulate themselves on avoiding it.
The other indisputable truth is that you cannot rear very many children in a 339 square foot condo on the 65th floor of a building that is completely surrounded by other tall buildings, especially when that condo cost you $250,000 and your tax rate is 45%. Where are you going to stack them? Where are they supposed to play? Who is going to take them outside to run around — when the nearest green space is half an hour away? And that’s not even including all the Gadgets they HAVE to have (lest they shriek and roll and flail and refuse to get up off the floor).
There are lots more reasons not to have kids than to have them, unless you live on a farm or need them to ramp up your welfare cheque.
as the mother of 3, i find the whole breeder vs. freerider debate incredibly stupid. i think people who don’t have dogs as pets are shallow and self centered : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.