Governments worldwide are trying to increase fertility with cash. But the most famous birthrate "boom" had a lot to do with science and technology, as well.
Loved this read - definitely advanced my previous thinking. Another direction we have to point technology to is not only the fertility to produce more babies, but the day to day support to raise these families in this modern context. Beyond the paid leave policies and childcare and the cost of families lies the realities of what it takes to be a dual working couple literally trying to make each week work.
We’re in need of a second family industrial boom - one that relieves women of the heavy administrative load and that invites men and other caregivers in, on their terms.
This isn’t just about “dividing up work” more fairly, but “disappearing” work that is making having kids seem undoable for many young women. As you pointed out, much of the boom followed a cultural model of desirability. We need the same again but entered around the very real mental load that’s a specific side effect of our digital age.
I wholeheartedly believe that the right science and tech can unlock new family possibilities by lifting these real burdens in new ways but the mental load can’t be “gadgetized” in the same way so it’ll take creative ways to solve.
Great post. I think like with everything in demography, the answer is very complex and counter-intuitive. In the US, the spread of household appliances has for sure contributed to the baby boom. But in Poland for example, common household appliances didn't become popular until decades later, yet the baby boom still happened.
To the question from the last paragraph - "can it happen again?" - I think we already know the answer. The US went through another, albeit much more muted, baby boom in the 1990s and early 2000s. After dropping like a stone in early 1970s and staying there for two decades, fertility rates jumped almost overnight by 10-15% in the late 80s and stayed there until the 2008 financial crisis. And again, it was common among all groups, not just because of increased Hispanic population in the US.
The more potent question is why. And I think I'd go back to my original observation that the mid-century baby boom happened everywhere, regardless of development level of countries. So what else could drive it? And as much as I dislike this answer, I have to say - it's probably religiosity. Religious people have more children nearly everywhere on Earth.
The 1920s and 1930s were a period of weakened religiosity. Then the Great Depression has drawn people back to churches and temples and the result was more babies. Similarly, in the late 60s, religiosity has declined significantly in the US and a depression in births followed but then the religious right counter-acted achieved its peak between late 80s and early aughts, which coincided with higher birth rates.
That second smaller baby boom is interesting also because it only happened in the US - it did not have an equivalent in Europe. Not surprisingly, back then the US was a significantly more religious country than Western European ones.
To me the biggest piece that is missing today is optimism. They were riding high on a wave of American exceptionalism and a belief in making a better world. Today's young people wake up every day with a sense of dread and uncertainty. If we want people to have kids they have to believe in the world and what it will become.
The Gen X joke is that we were raised on hose water and neglect. So, from that perspective, it does look from the outside that raising kids now takes a heck of a lot more cultural time, energy and money. Parents aren't done at 18 anymore either, with "kids" being well in to their 20's before leaving the nest.
Jonathan Haidt makes a pretty convincing case that kids need a lot of unstructured play where they run around and act like kids with minimal (but not zero) adult supervision.
Kids don't need to be doing activities every second of everyday. Get rid of the travel teams, put down the screens go outside and play
Great article. I very much think that one key to the fertility rate is early family formation. If we put off that family formation because say the cost of getting your first home is too high, then you reduce the number of child bearing years and thus the total number of kids.
From my own personal experience I can say that is true. After we got married we actually moved in with my parents for a couple of years to buy a house, and still we got lucky because we bought in 2010 when prices were briefly reasonable again.
If we had been in a home earlier, then probably would have started trying to have kids earlier. Instead we stopped at 2 because my wife was now 38 and we were out of time.
Doubtless the perceived need to go to college is also a factor because again it's delaying family formation.
Policy wise, I think building a ton more housing to bring down the cost of housing and allow for earlier family formation would definitely help move the needle.
After that, a greatly expanded child tax credit could also help. Make it bigger, and make it payable monthly.
Between the two that would also help let people that wanted a spouse to stay home in the first couple of years the chance to do so.
All that being said Cremieux makes a strong case that fertility subsidies do work.
Great post! Not to put the cart before the horse, but I wonder if older mothers utilizing fertility technology won’t have an even harder time keeping up with small kids. What’s really missing on the horizon is social technology to make the job of parenting easier. Some families are experimenting with less intensive or communal parenting, but for now they are stuck at the bottom of the S-curve. Can they reach mass adoption without some stimulus?
This tracks for me. We have three kids. Money played no part in our decision not to try for a fourth.
My wife stays at home. We have family nearby who help us out. We were fortunate to be able to hire help to clean and mow after our twins were born.
And yet, we still feel constantly overwhelmed.
If you could reduce the mental load of modern parenting, you might be onto something.
Loved this read - definitely advanced my previous thinking. Another direction we have to point technology to is not only the fertility to produce more babies, but the day to day support to raise these families in this modern context. Beyond the paid leave policies and childcare and the cost of families lies the realities of what it takes to be a dual working couple literally trying to make each week work.
We’re in need of a second family industrial boom - one that relieves women of the heavy administrative load and that invites men and other caregivers in, on their terms.
This isn’t just about “dividing up work” more fairly, but “disappearing” work that is making having kids seem undoable for many young women. As you pointed out, much of the boom followed a cultural model of desirability. We need the same again but entered around the very real mental load that’s a specific side effect of our digital age.
I wholeheartedly believe that the right science and tech can unlock new family possibilities by lifting these real burdens in new ways but the mental load can’t be “gadgetized” in the same way so it’ll take creative ways to solve.
Great post. I think like with everything in demography, the answer is very complex and counter-intuitive. In the US, the spread of household appliances has for sure contributed to the baby boom. But in Poland for example, common household appliances didn't become popular until decades later, yet the baby boom still happened.
To the question from the last paragraph - "can it happen again?" - I think we already know the answer. The US went through another, albeit much more muted, baby boom in the 1990s and early 2000s. After dropping like a stone in early 1970s and staying there for two decades, fertility rates jumped almost overnight by 10-15% in the late 80s and stayed there until the 2008 financial crisis. And again, it was common among all groups, not just because of increased Hispanic population in the US.
The more potent question is why. And I think I'd go back to my original observation that the mid-century baby boom happened everywhere, regardless of development level of countries. So what else could drive it? And as much as I dislike this answer, I have to say - it's probably religiosity. Religious people have more children nearly everywhere on Earth.
The 1920s and 1930s were a period of weakened religiosity. Then the Great Depression has drawn people back to churches and temples and the result was more babies. Similarly, in the late 60s, religiosity has declined significantly in the US and a depression in births followed but then the religious right counter-acted achieved its peak between late 80s and early aughts, which coincided with higher birth rates.
That second smaller baby boom is interesting also because it only happened in the US - it did not have an equivalent in Europe. Not surprisingly, back then the US was a significantly more religious country than Western European ones.
This is probably also part the answer it also is I think part of the reason why Israel has higher fertility rates.
Just a heads up that the link in your second footnote leads to a 404 error.
To me the biggest piece that is missing today is optimism. They were riding high on a wave of American exceptionalism and a belief in making a better world. Today's young people wake up every day with a sense of dread and uncertainty. If we want people to have kids they have to believe in the world and what it will become.
The Gen X joke is that we were raised on hose water and neglect. So, from that perspective, it does look from the outside that raising kids now takes a heck of a lot more cultural time, energy and money. Parents aren't done at 18 anymore either, with "kids" being well in to their 20's before leaving the nest.
Or maybe we need to return to the Gen X model.
Jonathan Haidt makes a pretty convincing case that kids need a lot of unstructured play where they run around and act like kids with minimal (but not zero) adult supervision.
Kids don't need to be doing activities every second of everyday. Get rid of the travel teams, put down the screens go outside and play
Great article. I very much think that one key to the fertility rate is early family formation. If we put off that family formation because say the cost of getting your first home is too high, then you reduce the number of child bearing years and thus the total number of kids.
From my own personal experience I can say that is true. After we got married we actually moved in with my parents for a couple of years to buy a house, and still we got lucky because we bought in 2010 when prices were briefly reasonable again.
If we had been in a home earlier, then probably would have started trying to have kids earlier. Instead we stopped at 2 because my wife was now 38 and we were out of time.
Doubtless the perceived need to go to college is also a factor because again it's delaying family formation.
Policy wise, I think building a ton more housing to bring down the cost of housing and allow for earlier family formation would definitely help move the needle.
After that, a greatly expanded child tax credit could also help. Make it bigger, and make it payable monthly.
Between the two that would also help let people that wanted a spouse to stay home in the first couple of years the chance to do so.
All that being said Cremieux makes a strong case that fertility subsidies do work.
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/storks-take-orders-from-the-state?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&utm_medium=email&hide_intro_popup=true
Also current car seat rules are bonkers and are almost certainly effecting the fertility rate as well
https://thezvi.substack.com/p/on-car-seats-as-contraception
Great post! Not to put the cart before the horse, but I wonder if older mothers utilizing fertility technology won’t have an even harder time keeping up with small kids. What’s really missing on the horizon is social technology to make the job of parenting easier. Some families are experimenting with less intensive or communal parenting, but for now they are stuck at the bottom of the S-curve. Can they reach mass adoption without some stimulus?
AI may be part of the answer.
As Derek noted, there were several factors that increased the fertility rate:
* Dishwashers, laundry machines, etc, made child rearing easier
* Low housing prices made it cheaper
* Cultural factors encouraged optimism for the future.
AI has the potential to:
* Lower mental load on parents (what and when to buy things for kids, school tasks, etc).
* Reduce costs: cheaper goods (potentially alongside increased unemployment, but that's another discussion), UBI
* Creating a cultural zeitgeist of (wait for it....) abundance!
TBD