Why low birth rate in the US?

[_Chap]

The USA is the only advanced industrialised country that does not guarantee paid maternity leave.

Undeveloped countries don't have paid maternity leave. Why doesn't this limit their birth rate?

The question you pose is irrelevant to the thread topic, which is about the USA's birth rate.

In discussing the reasons for that, it is necessary to compare the situation of fertile working women in the USA to the situation of fertile working women in other comparable countries, where the rate of participation and work circumstances of women in demanding regular employment away from home is similar to the participation rate and work circumstances of women in the USA.

It makes no sense to compare, for instance, women working full-time in New York with hunter-gatherer women of the Kalahari San people, even though neither of them may have an entitlement to paid maternity leave.

[_honorentheos]

An interesting thing happened in that the birth rate collapsed in the 2008 recession, which was not unexpected, but never recovered when the economy did, which was less expected.

I think part of it is simply that taking care of children is very hard and alternative entertainment options just keep getting better and better which young people are the most adept at accessing. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the idea of kids is becoming a hassle to more and more people.

Interesting observation, EA. Just speculating, but I wonder how much the effect of having been through a period where being able to be flexible and adaptable to circumstance has had a chilling effect on the overall population's willingness to take on constraining responsibilities? This corresponds with the decline in home ownership, a real anchor to someone who might feel they need to be able to move to find work for example. Also car ownership. Again, why chain oneself to a depreciating asset with maintenance costs if one can make other choices that grant greater flexibility with less direct obligations.

See -
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ls/382010/

[_honorentheos]

In discussing the reasons for that, it is necessary to compare the situation of fertile working women in the USA to the situation of fertile working women in other comparable countries, where the rate of participation and work circumstances of women in demanding regular employment away from home is similar to the participation rate and work circumstances of women in the USA.

It makes no sense to compare, for instance, women working full-time in New York with hunter-gatherer women of the Kalahari San people, even though neither of them may have an entitlement to paid maternity leave.

So why is Switzerland's fertility rate always around 1.5?

[_Chap]

In discussing the reasons for that, it is necessary to compare the situation of fertile working women in the USA to the situation of fertile working women in other comparable countries, where the rate of participation and work circumstances of women in demanding regular employment away from home is similar to the participation rate and work circumstances of women in the USA.

It makes no sense to compare, for instance, women working full-time in New York with hunter-gatherer women of the Kalahari San people, even though neither of them may have an entitlement to paid maternity leave.

So why is Switzerland's fertility rate always around 1.5?

The word 'so' at the start of your question suggests that it is supposed to be in some way connected with my statements quoted - which simply said that in trying to find factors in US society that might be connected with a falling birth-rate, it made little sense to make the kind of comparison proposed by the poster to whom I was replying, viz and to wit:

Undeveloped countries don't have paid maternity leave. Why doesn't this limit their birth rate?

No rational person who studies questions like this would argue that the provision of guaranteed paid maternity leave is the only factor relevant to birth-rates. I certainly do not. But there is research - an example of which I cited - which suggests that a country that does not have guaranteed paid maternity leave and is concerned about a falling birth rate should seriously consider introducing such provision.

As, somewhat to my surprise, I find that the Trump administration has considered doing. What happened about that?

[_honorentheos]

The word 'so' at the start of your question suggests that it is supposed to be in some way connected with my statements quoted - which simply said that in trying to find factors in US society that might be connected with a falling birth-rate, it made little sense to make the kind of comparison proposed by the poster to whom I was replying, viz and to wit:

Undeveloped countries don't have paid maternity leave. Why doesn't this limit their birth rate?

No rational person who studies questions like this would argue that the provision of guaranteed paid maternity leave is the only factor relevant to birth-rates. I certainly do not. But there is research - an example of which I cited - which suggests that a country that does not have guaranteed paid maternity leave and is concerned about a falling birth rate should seriously consider introducing such provision.

As, somewhat to my surprise, I find that the Trump administration has considered doing. What happened about that?

I am curious what you point to when its another developed country that has low fertility. The US is hardly an outlier, just trending down a little more quickly than others right now among developed nations in regard to it's fertility rate. The United Kingdom sits at a similar number to the US (1.81 compared to 1.76 in 2017), and its estimated almost 30% of births in the UK are from foreign born mothers rather than British nationals. So. What's your thoughts on that?

[_Chap]

What's your thoughts on that?

Basically what I said:

... there is research - an example of which I cited - which suggests that a country that does not have guaranteed paid maternity leave and is concerned about a falling birth rate should seriously consider introducing such provision.

At the level of posts on a discussion board, one can reasonably say that evidence suggests that a country with worries about its long-term birth-rate trend, and which (like the US) has NOT already made provision for guaranteed paid maternity leave should strongly consider using that 'shot in the locker' as part of a package of measures.

But see this study of the broader issues (written from a UK perspective, which assumes the presence of paid maternity leave):

Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required

Part of the text sums it up:

Early and cost-effective assessment of fertility problems and assisted reproduction should be provided as part of public health care. For example: a) There should be a strong emphasis on protection of reproductive health in the secondary school curriculum. b) Specially designed “pre-conception care” clinics must be established within the Public Health Service to educate men and women on factors affecting their fertility and to help them help themselves to natural conception. c) An ongoing fertility awareness programme should be set up for communities funded by local governments in conjunction with the local voluntary sector. A tailored and sensitive programme could enhance the effect in a multicultural population. d) A long-term plan for affordable housing for young couples should continue. This could help couples plan an early parenthood. e) Provision of affordable and high quality child care facilities should be available. f) Flexible, part-time career posts for women should be a priority.

Only a multi-factorial approach makes sense. These are serious and complex issues. But if it amuses people like ajax to post on the lines of 'Hey! Some poor countries have no paid maternity leave but high birth rates, so forget the idea of trying paid maternity leave as a response to low birth rates', I'm happy for them to have fun that way.

[_moksha]

1. Later age of marriage
2. Availability of birth control
3. Abortion
4. Video games and late-night television
5. Restricted family size for enhanced quality of life purposes
6. Unaffordable single family dwellings
7. Gubbermint is putting something in the water to sap bodily fluids.

[_honorentheos]

I don't know that focusing on paid maturity leave is doing the discussion any service, though. While I tend to agree it is a good idea but balk at suggesting it should be mandatory because its the sort of policy that would have ramifications big enough it would be irresponsible to cavalierly declare it should be so without real investigation, there are facts related to fertility rates that suggest something cultural is at work rather than purely economical. As noted in your article,

The fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families and the socially deprived (Singh et al., 2001). However the fertility rates of immigrants to the US have been found to decrease sharply in the second generation as a result of improving education and income.

What is it about integrating with US and UK society that causes a sharp drop off in fertility if not cultural?

[_Chap]

I don't know that focusing on paid maturity [Chap: typo for 'maternity'?] leave is doing the discussion any service, though. While I tend to agree it is a good idea but balk at suggesting it should be mandatory because its the sort of policy that would have ramifications big enough it would be irresponsible to cavalierly declare it should be so without real investigation ...

Who on earth is arguing that paid maternity leave should be 'cavalierly declared without real investigation'? Not me, certainly. That's why I posted a link to a paper that did some 'real investigation' earlier in the thread, as an example of the sort of work that needs to be done in order to come to a well-judged decision on a point like this one.

What is it about integrating with US and UK society that causes a sharp drop off in fertility if not cultural?

It is hard to distinguish meaningfully between the cultural and the economic, surely? A generation born in a country with much higher living standards than their parents' country of origin will want to live and raise their kids at a standard that their neighbours and workmates find acceptable. Unless they are very rich, that will make it very unlikely that they will feel happy about raising as many kids as they might have raised in their parents' county of origin at the living standards there prevalent. In some cases, they may simply decide that they can't afford to raise any kids at all.

If that happens frequently, a government has the choice between either accepting an ageing population, with all the problems that flow from that, or looking hard at ways to make it easier for people to take the decision to have at least some kids.

[_Themis]

I think part of it is simply that taking care of children is very hard and alternative entertainment options just keep getting better and better which young people are the most adept at accessing. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the idea of kids is becoming a hassle to more and more people.

Quebec had concerns about falling birth rates among francophones and implemented better day care so everyone in society could help share in some of the costs of raising children. I believe it did have an effect. What's interesting is their concerns were similar to Ajax's concerns about decreasing percentage of a particular race/cultural group. I do think if a society wants to increase birth rates, making the rest of society share some of that cost is a great idea. Especially since those who may choose not to have children will depend on other people having kids to take care of them at some point.