Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brain_Thief | Hacker News Reader

Since when are sources required for basic observations on reality? Thanks to Republican opposition to providing first-world amenities to U.S. citizens (universal health care access, education access, childcare access, etc.) new generations of Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to start families. The evidence for this is multitudinous and moments away via any search engine...

View on HN

Well, for starters it is against this site's guidelines

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.

Fertility rates are equally low in other developed countries that offer universal healthcare, subsidized childcare, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

I plugged in Denmark and Portugal, and both show lower fertility rates than the US.

The unstated conclusion of your response seems to be that the absence of basic social service rights has no impact on rate of demographic change in developed countries; however, your comment appears to be focused on current measurements, and not rate of change. Keep in mind that the average American's economic position has been degrading for decades now, while the same cannot be said (to the same extent) for the citizens of the European countries you mentioned. Your source only has data through the year 2015, so I have supplemented it with projection data for the year 2020 from the CIA World Factbook [1] to more clearly illustrate the trend; the earlier date for each example I cite below is sourced from your link [2]. I've also included data for several other major countries (and the EU as a whole) that offer basic social safety rights to their citizens.

The USA fertility rate in 1990 was 1.98; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.84 (a delta of -.14).

The fertility rate in Denmark in 1990 was 1.65; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.78 (a delta of +.13).

The fertility rate in Portugal in 1990 was 1.52; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.41 (a delta of -.11).

The fertility rate in Germany in 1990 was 1.36; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.47 (a delta of +.11).

The fertility rate in Canada in 1990 was 1.66; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.57 (a delta of -.09).

The fertility rate in France in 1990 was 1.75; in 2020 it is projected to be 2.06 (a delta of +.31).

The fertility rate in Norway in 1990 was 1.85; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.84 (a delta of -.01).

The fertility rate for Europe in total in 1990 was 1.70; in 2020 it is projected to be 1.62 (a delta of -.08).

This is obviously not a thorough (or even statistical) analysis of the situation, but a cursory look at the data from the perspective of multi-decade trends does not lend credence to the notion that the availability of social safety nets has no impact on demographic rate of change in a developed country.

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#the-global-decline...

Data shows [1] educated, empowered women with access to contraceptives have less children overall, and defer having children until later in life, full stop.

I also argue it is a net positive, regardless of the underlying mechanism(s), that the fertility rate is declining across the world considering the unsustainable consumption rate per capita of the first world.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-wom...

This is a good point. A lower fertility rate will probably result in a better quality of life for people in the long run since there is less competition for resources

I agree with those points but I have not seen evidence for the idea that the availability of social safety nets is not also a significant factor in fertility rate trend, which I took to be the thrust of your original post.

Conversely, I haven't seen evidence that the availability of social safety nets is a significant factor. More data is required, but I still believe my theory is on sound footing based on existing fertility data.

You didn't state a theory; to the extent that you implied a theory similar to the one I described the available data does not support it at all...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com