“Notably, Chang’s report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line.”

(…)

“The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students’ early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates.”

  • Triasha@lemmy.worldEnglish
    91·
    5 months ago

    Raise the price of labor to the point that a working family can afford to have children at the standard they consider socially acceptable.

    That would devalue investment accounts though, so it won’t happen until there is suffering on a scale not seen outside of major wars.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      22·
      5 months ago

      It won’t make people have enough kids to renew the population though otherwise birthrate would have been higher than it was in the 70s and 80s

      • Triasha@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        5 months ago

        In what country?

        I’m talking about raising wages by 40-70% in the US.

        Pipe dream, but if it happened the fertility rate would increase.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          5 months ago

          It’s the same story in all countries as they become developed, access to birth control and people having other more interesting shit to do means they don’t want to have kids, no matter how easy it is for them.

          Finland: 1910 to 1930 4.7 to 2.4, 1950 to 1975 3.4 to 1.6, between 1.5 and 1.9 since then.

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033730/fertility-rate-finland-1800-2020/

          Look at Canada’s numbers the second the pill becomes available in the 60s (years before Reaganomics and at a time where people were still able to make it on a single income)

          https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

          UK, going down since the end of the industrial revolution

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033074/fertility-rate-uk-1800-2020/

          People just don’t want enough kids to renew the population when they’re given the choice to do something else, it’s that simple.

          Heck, increased income is associated with decreased fertility, it’s been known for decades at this point! How come the rich don’t have tons of kids? They don’t have to stress about money, right? How come poor people have more kids than the middle class? It’s not as if they have a surplus of cash or can afford to only have one parent working, right?

          • Triasha@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            France made childcare and education free and relatively high quality and look at that! They have just under replacement level fertility!

            Some people do want children. Not everyone, but lots of people do. It’s true that wealth depresses fertility, but you can have a sustainable society if you give people financial security.

            I’m willing to believe there are some cultural issues at play, not just the economics, but that is for demographers to tease out.

            The American congressional representatives have an average of 2 children. Replacement rate. Get our standard of living up to that and you will see fertility go up.