
Australian women are having fewer children, later in life - cup
http://painauchoripan.blogspot.com/2012/09/faceboomers.html
======
lkrubner
The demographic transition began in the developed nations around 1850:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)

My great-grandmother (mom's mom's mom) had 16 children. My mom had 4. My mom's
4 children are done having children, and my mom currently has 3 grandchildren.

Life expectancy at birth has increased 6 hours every day since 1850. That
trend has been surprisingly steady, despite a few World Wars and depressions.
6 hours every day. That works out to 2.5 years per decade, and over 16
decades, that works out to 40 years. Thus the average lifespan has moved from
around the age of 40 to around the age of 80.

Occasionally I read an article with a sensational headline such as "A new baby
boom!" because fertility has moved from some small number to some slightly
larger, but still small, number. Or other times the sensational headline goes
the other way: "Baby Bust! Is your retirement fund in peril?"

Against all such minor variations in the medium-term trend, it is worth
remembering that the the long-term trend has been down. In 16 decades, the
only really serious, world-wide break from the trend was 1945 to 1953, and
that was clearly a response to the war.

The most interesting break from the trend was the so-called English-speaking
Baby Boom, which occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and
the USA. It started in the late 1930s, then stopped due to the war, then
started again in 1945, and the birth rate climbed until 1958, and it remained
high till the mid 1960s.

Outside of that one major deviation, the trend has been down for a very long
time.

Meanwhile, the Earth's overall population has had its biggest run ever. The
last time the human population of the Earth fell is thought to have been the
Great Plague of 1347 to 1350, but the boom since 1800 has no precedent. There
were 1 billion humans alive in 1800, 2 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1950, 4
billion in the 1970s.

There are roughly 7 billion people alive today.

Try to keep all that in mind when you read about variations in the birth
trend.

~~~
ps4fanboy
[https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f...](https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_c=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_c=lin&ind_c=false&idim=country:USA:AUS&ifdim=country&tunit=Y&pit=1385733600000&ind=false&icfg)

This shows what you are talking about.

------
ps4fanboy
Most of the western world has had falling fertility rates, it would also help
explain the push for immigration in those countries, politicians are quietly
worried about the stability of their population growth / consumption
economies.

[https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f...](https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS:USA:CAN:FRA:GBR)

EDIT: why downvote? I am not saying immigration is wrong. I was saying its the
only way western countries will maintain their growth rates. If you think
immigration is wrong or right is irrelevant to what I am saying.

------
colmvp
Not a surprise.

Trends show that women in the U.S. and Canada are also having fewer children
than in generations past and trending towards having children at a later age.

Canada

[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.ht...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm)

U.S.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth-
rates-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth-rates-hit-
record-low-for-those-under-25-still-on-the-rise-for-those-40/)

------
dboreham
Ugh.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w)

~~~
WildUtah
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU)

------
thehacker005263
(not serious) First thing I remembered just after reading the title:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM)

~~~
toomim
Me too, except I'm serious.

------
TulliusCicero
In a developed economy, having kids is financially stupid. _Deeply_ stupid. It
costs individuals a ton, but the benefits accrue to society. Classic tragedy
of the commons.

If we want people to have more kids, say, up to the replacement rate, then
that means subsidies. Cheaper childcare seems to be the main thing that
encourages more kids:
[http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-
rich-countries-can-be-coaxed-having-more-children-lazy-husbands-and)

~~~
aianus
Or we could just increase skilled immigration to maintain the population.
Costs us nothing.

~~~
danieltillett
Or we could just have fewer people living in the country. The population of
Australia has expanded massively in my lifetime (it has about doubled) yet the
infrastructure to support this higher population has not been built. Twice as
many people trying to live using the same infrastructure does not make for a
fun time.

~~~
victorhooi
A lot of naive observers suggest this, without having thought through the
demographical consequences.

Go look at Japan to see what happens when you reduce both births and
immigration.

An aging population, combined with falling fertility rates and no immigration
is a disaster waiting to happen.

You need fresh blood to keep an economy going - they form the backbone of the
workforce (read: taxes) - and in general, they're not scared of trying new
things.

~~~
danieltillett
Japan is doing ok. What matters is per capita GDP not gross GDP.

~~~
joeclark77
Neither of those things could help Japan. Ultimately old people are going to
need nurses and other people to provide services for them. If there are not
enough young people willing to do those jobs, then all the money in the world
is useless.

~~~
aianus
Nothing stopping them from importing nurses from abroad when and if they get
to that desperate stage.

~~~
joeclark77
The parent, parent, parent comment (by victorhooi) is stating that Japan's
problems stem from its reluctance both to have children and to allow
immigration. Your answer -- that they should change their attitude toward
immigration -- doesn't refute him or me, it agrees with us.

------
williamsiddall
fewer, not less

~~~
dieterrams
This is actually a pointless distinction to make, as evidenced by the fact
that (1) nobody is actually confused by one's meaning if they use 'less' where
they were supposed to use 'fewer', and (2) there is no equivalent for 'more'.

Probably one of the best examples of a rule that should be dropped from the
English language, imo.

~~~
xiaoma
If we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and
x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway.

Until the language is remade to conform to logic though, I think it's best to
learn countable and uncountable distinctions. At the very least it's an
advantage not to have others underestimate you based on grammar issues in your
writing.

~~~
xupybd
From the wiki page on this topic: "However, descriptive grammarians (who
describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not
correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact
arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a
grammarian in 1770:

~~~
Stratoscope
I'm sure fewer people every year care whether you write "fewer" or "less". By
now, many people could care less.

But quite a few will still notice and wonder why you didn't say "fewer", even
if it's less of an issue than it used to be.

I think it's still worth it to get this "right", if only because fewer people
will think less of your writing.

Watch out for that wiki page, if we're looking at the same one:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less)

This page seems rather biased; it's easily earned its "neutrality of this
article is disputed" tag with crazy stuff like this:

> even most prescriptivists accept the _most common_ usage "there are less
> cups of flour in this canister" [emphasis added]

Instead of worrying about the opinions of "prescriptivists" and
"descriptivists", just listen to the people you know, hear, and read: would
_most_ of them really say "there are less cups of flour in this canister"? And
does that sound fine, or a bit off, to your ear?

Of course, no one I know would say "there are _fewer_ cups of flour in this
canister" either - they would simply say "there's less flour in this
canister". What do cups have to do with it?

Language does change, and usage that was once "wrong" becomes right. A good
example is "because of" and "due to". There was a terribly confusing rule
about which to use, but these days fewer and fewer people will care if you
simply use "due to" in every context. "Due to" has won, and it's nice to have
one less rule to worry about.

Alas, I don't think "fewer" and "less" are quite there yet.

~~~
hudibras
> By now, many people could care less.

This should be "couldn't care less."

~~~
Stratoscope
Nope, but you get an upvote for noticing, thanks! :-)

I used "could care less" deliberately, in keeping with the cheeky spirit of my
comment:

[http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-
less....](http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less.html)

[http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-
ico1.htm](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm)

[https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-
pi...](https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pinker-
language-william-safire) (scroll down)

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-
tr...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-tribu-words-
work-care-less-20130313_1_care-harry-styles-idioms)

~~~
hudibras
I knew that you used it on purpose; just tossing you a softball, that's all.

~~~
Stratoscope
Ha! I should have known you were up to something, my friend.

Well played. And I mean that _not_ in the sarcastic sense! :-)

