I consider this a typical case of statisticians massaging the data. In fact, I believe the Gini coefficient itself is flawed modeling. Even statisticians don't really use it much these days, right? The Gini index on Wikipedia actually reflects consumption inequality.

Also, high-fertility countries fundamentally have low contraception usage, low women's rights, and short periods of education. This is because labor is crucial in typical agrarian to light-industry economies.

Conversely, low-fertility countries are characterized by extended education and delayed job stability. The reason is simple: work that generates high added value requires a significant amount of time spent on education. Generally, the OECD doesn't view the decline in fertility rates in developed countries as being driven by just a single variable either.

Rather, there is a clear established relationship: higher housing costs correspond to a lower TFR (Total Fertility Rate) [1]. Classes exempt from these housing expenses—namely, individuals whose parents hold substantial real estate and assets—clearly have more children.

Actually, this kind of research has been conducted extensively in East Asian countries like Korea and Japan, yielding very similar conclusions.

[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-202...

Let's consider programming, which represents an entry into a high value-added industry.

To monetize programming, you fundamentally need to offer something more valuable than existing open-source software, or target a niche that open-source fails to address. However, this industry has now matured, and countless talented young individuals in the US have already contributed heavily to the open-source ecosystem.

As a result, it is exceedingly difficult for developers in non-English speaking countries to sell programs that are inferior to free open-source alternatives. This is exacerbated by the very nature of software, which can be instantly and perfectly replicated.

(Physical capital, on the other hand, is much easier for the establishment to control through protectionism. For instance, to foster the growth of Hyundai Motors, my country, South Korea, restricted American car imports, effectively forcing citizens to drive lower-quality domestic cars. That kind of national sacrifice was required.)

Consequently, citizens of non-English speaking countries face a double burden: the time required to master English, added to the time needed to learn programming and accumulate foundational experience. By the time they build this experience and reach a stable level of professional competency, they are typically in their early 30s. This inherently forces a delay in marriage and family formation.

I generally don't think highly of people who make this argument. It relies on the simplistic framing of the "end of absolute poverty." In fact, this is the exact same rhetoric used by CCP apologists. While it is true that the modern poor enjoy better consumption, this argument completely ignores the economic concepts of positional goods and relative deprivation.

Consider the biological imperative of finding a mate. The competitive factors for securing a partner are now broadcast and scaled across the entire society. The core of what kings of old enjoyed wasn't "air conditioning" or "refrigerators." Kings owned territory (real estate), wielded power, and monopolized the infrastructural capital that allowed them to pass down an overwhelming survival advantage to their lineage. Does a modern immigrant live like a king just because they use an iPhone? The modern poor merely consume cheap manufactured goods; they have been completely stripped of the physical foundation required to form a family (housing) and the control over their generational reproduction.

The idea that Elon Musk amassing wealth has nothing to do with the working class is laughable. When wealth concentrates at the very top, that capital inevitably flows into supply-constrained, zero-sum assets—namely, real estate in prime locations and elite educational opportunities. Why do you think the cost of living in Silicon Valley is so absurdly high? The capital accumulated by billionaires like Musk and other asset holders astronomically pumps up (inflates) the prices of these "positional goods."

Human family formation is not determined by comparing oneself to a 16th-century serf. It is strictly determined by one's "relative status" within their contemporary community. No matter how much absolute caloric intake increases, if you cannot secure the asset advantage required to raise a child to a "middle-class standard" within your current community, a rational human being will simply give up on reproduction.

??The statistics speak for themselves. In Spain, the top 1% holds 21% of the total wealth, 30% of the low-income demographic are the working poor, and 45% are irregular workers.

Isn't the US in a similar situation? Regardless of other arguments, when you consider the OECD statistics demonstrating the impact of housing costs on fertility rates, I firmly believe that wealth inequality is indeed the root cause.

[1] https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/jpsj...