Very good article. I’ve long said that the U-curve of fertility didn’t get enough coverage.
The increases in labor productivity and leisure opportunities that make economic growth so important also siphon resources away from the future contributors to that growth.
I feel like this amounts to a subcase of the superstimulus problem. You can argue whether a medieval peasant would spend all day eating nacho cheese Doritos all day, but modern humans (generally) don’t, and I’d argue that some combination of biological and cultural evolution is responsible for making us get sick of things that are excessively indulgent.
This could be said to be a factor in the U-curve, too. More disciplined, agentic, and intelligent people both have an easier time earning money and are more inclined to reject superstimuli.
This means that broad pro-growth policies like housing deregulation can raise birthrates even without specific subsidies for parents or childcare specific reforms, though the two will work better together.
I would argue the contrary. One of the core benefits of being ultra-rich, at least in America, is being able to buy yourself freedom of association. A gated community where your kids can play outside until 10 like it’s still the 1990′s. A neighborhood that can be the ‘village’ that helps with raising children. A school where you don’t really have to worry that much about what might happen while you’re at work.
A lot of the U-curve, in my estimation, comes from the fact that middle-class people are conscientious enough to care about those things but not wealthy enough to afford to provide them for their hypothetical children. “I couldn’t raise a child in this neighborhood” is something I’ve heard a lot.
Very good article. I’ve long said that the U-curve of fertility didn’t get enough coverage.
I feel like this amounts to a subcase of the superstimulus problem. You can argue whether a medieval peasant would spend all day eating nacho cheese Doritos all day, but modern humans (generally) don’t, and I’d argue that some combination of biological and cultural evolution is responsible for making us get sick of things that are excessively indulgent.
This could be said to be a factor in the U-curve, too. More disciplined, agentic, and intelligent people both have an easier time earning money and are more inclined to reject superstimuli.
I would argue the contrary. One of the core benefits of being ultra-rich, at least in America, is being able to buy yourself freedom of association. A gated community where your kids can play outside until 10 like it’s still the 1990′s. A neighborhood that can be the ‘village’ that helps with raising children. A school where you don’t really have to worry that much about what might happen while you’re at work.
A lot of the U-curve, in my estimation, comes from the fact that middle-class people are conscientious enough to care about those things but not wealthy enough to afford to provide them for their hypothetical children. “I couldn’t raise a child in this neighborhood” is something I’ve heard a lot.