“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.”

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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?