Comments on: Demographics

By: cody j.

cody j. — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:28:07 +0000

religion is definately influential on fertility rates. In the US, white, non-hispanic fertility rates are running about 1.7 – 1.9. Contrast that with the white, non-hispanic fertility rate in the state of Utah – about 2.3. This correlates with the high number of orthodox Mormons in the state. One would expect to find a similar correlation in the “Bible Belt” (southern US). However, white, non-hispanic fertility rates in states such as Alabama (1.9) do not bear this out. Curious. I’ve seen postings citing the US white fertility rate at 2.1, but this is a little misleading. “White”, as the US Census defines it, includes millions of latino immigrants. When comparing/contrasting the “white population” in Europe and the US, you must keep in mind that the US Census does not consider “hispanic/latino” as a separate race. For Census purposes, “hispanic” refers to the ethnic background of any race (white/black). So, to fairly compare/contrast white populations between Europe and US, one must be specific as to non-hispanic whites. IMHO, I believe the falling fertility rates among any race in the US or Europe, but especially among white, non-hispanics is a function of secularism, individualism, wealth and accompanying leisure, and a sense of secuity/dependence on the state. Contraceptives/abortion allows people the means to maintain their wealth and leisure time – something (actually, one of the only things) a secular person can look forward to in life. The “god” of Self.

By: Lawrence Krubner

Lawrence Krubner — Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:10:38 +0000

“Did the US become less religious than Europe during those years only to bounce back after 1980?” The religious revival that started in the 1970s has been quite marked. I live in a country in which 96% of the population says it believes in God, which, I’ve read, is about the highest percent in the world. One historian argues that America is now undergoing its fourth Great Awakening. It’s worth noting that the best selling fiction in America during the 1990s were the Left Behind books. Are these the kinds of books that would sell in Europe? As to immigration in Europe and America, I read in the Economist that both “countries” have received about the same absolute number of immigrants during the last 20 years, but that this would represent a greater percent increase for America. My own feeling is that America has a higher birth-rate than Europe because it is more religous. Eve Tushnet typifies the trend when she says that the whole point of leading a self-conquered life is to make yourself more able to raise more children. More so, most of my liberal friends are religious. It is not merely the political right that is religous. Most of my liberal college educated friends who hate George Bush are quite religous. It is a universal experience in America to be religous.

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:30:06 +0000

One other quick point—on the issue of access to birth control. We (in the US) have higher teen births than they do in Europe, even though, for the most part, teens start having sex at about the same age both places. Access to contraception is an issue for teens here.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:30:17 +0000

Chris K – does the Germany migration figure include gastarbeiter (guest workers)? It might account for the higher migration figure if it does.

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:04:15 +0000

Hello, all. I’m a demographer. Don’t know that it’ll help all that much with this discussion, since we (demographers) don’t really have an adequate explanation for differences in fertility rates between the U.S. and Europe, either… But at least I can fill in some numbers for the discussion. Data from 2001 (from the National Vital Statistics Reports) show the following Total Fertility Rates (# of kids a woman would be expected to have in her lifetime if current rates prevailed throughout her childbearing years—this is a better measure for these comparisons than the crude birth rates some of you were using earlier, because it is not affected by differing age distributions of the populations you’re comparing)… TFR for all in U.S.: 2.034 for non-Hispanic whites: 1.843 for non-Hispanic blacks: 2.104 for all Hispanics: 2.748 (broken down, Mexican origin: 2.928, Puerto Rican origin: 2.165) The basic point is that even among non-Hispanic whites in the United States, TFR is a bit higher than in Europe (for the most part). Some European TFRs from 2003 World Pop. Data Sheet: Italy 1.2 Ireland 2.0 (higher!) U.K. 1.6 Denmark 1.7 Sweden 1.6 The argument that it has something to do with religiosity among Americans is not totally off the wall, and neither are the arguments about population density. A lot of the evidence for the historical declines in fertility that brought us from high/”natural” fertility to these below-replacement levels suggests that it had at least as much, if not more, to do with culture and ideas and social networks as it did to do with economics.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:47:56 +0000

Oh sorry I don’t know if you saw that was a quote from a demographer, not me. And one I didn’t actually mean to include after the ‘he said’. I don’t buy the religous argument myself. Perhaps it’s to do with pensions. Germany has a generous state pension scheme so people don’t feel they need children to look after them….

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:35:48 +0000

” the “excess” children in the US are all being born to impoverished single parents in trailer park” I bet they grow up to become gun-loving republicans. What a disaster. No sterotyping here. Here is the real story. the EU and the US flipped a coin to see who would get the arabs and the mexicans. The US won and chose the mexicans. We win.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:57:56 +0000

Matthew, I don’t see how the “greater religiosity” hypothesis is consistent with what is said in the Economist article. The Economist says: bq. Between 1960 and 1985, the American fertility rate had fallen faster than Europe’s, to 1.8, slightly below European levels and far below the “replacement level” of 2.1 Did the US become less religious than Europe during those years only to bounce back after 1980?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:43:49 +0000

The Economist article about this is available online http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:42:44 +0000

This basically answers those questions http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-543rv.pdf I didn’t read it all but it seems that Hispanic women have more children, but that isn’t really enough to make the oveall figures that much higher. Income doesn’t seem to play much of a role (but I only skimmed this bit). A quote i saw from a demographer went like this , “”The U.S. is the most fertile of developed nations,” he said, just above the replacement rate of 2.0, to replace two parents. He discounts ethnicity as the major cause. “Even if you tried to match European-Americans with their country of origins, fertility would be higher than in Europe,” he said. “New wealth doesn’t explain it. My pet theory—and you can’t prove this—is that it has to do with greater religiosity than in Europe or Japan.”

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:09:22 +0000

Couple of other points: —There’s little correlation, either positive or negative, between population density and birthrate. —The Netherlands have historically had a slightly higher birthrate than the European average. The Dutch population increased from about 2 million in 1800 to about 16 million today. That’s an eightfold increase; but over the same period, the population of most of the rest of western Europe “only” quadrupled. In 1800 Britain had about six times as many people as the Netherlands (~11 million) while France had about 15 times as many (~30 million). Today both Britain and France have about 60 million people, only about 3.8 times as many as the 16 million Dutch. Point here being, relatively higher Dutch birthrates are not a new phenomenon. They date back to the 19th century, if not farther, and comfortably predate the origin of the welfare state. I’m wondering if Esping-Anderson took that into account.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:52:27 +0000

Chris’ original question doesn’t seem to have been answered, though. Who’s having all those extra American kids? We’re getting a lot of anecdotal “seems to me” discussion, but that’s—sorry—pretty worthless. Also some nice cites, but they don’t seem to be answering the question that was asked. Yeah, first-generation immigrants are having more kids, but they’re a fairly small (~10%) part of the population, and lowering their birthrates to match the national average still leaves the US with a rate well above the European average. Can’t anyone come up with, say, a birthrate-income curve for the US? Surely there ought to be a way to get the data out of census.gov. Doug M.—Irish/American, married to a German, father of two

By: northernLights

northernLights — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:31:22 +0000

Check “Center on budget and policy priorities” and also EITC. A lot of the data is given in terms of the poverty level. But I remember reading a statistic recently, sorry can’t remember where, about the percentage of children living in households that are eligible for the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). While the higher end of eligibility is above the poverty level, nevertheless the government feels that that income level is in need of an income supplement if there are children in the household. I’ve thought about that issue too because it may be “sclerotic” for us in US also, to have to have 2.5 workers to produce the earning power of 1 European if our children can’t afford a decent education to get ahead.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:25:18 +0000

The bit about dirty secret wasn’t a sneer at immigration per se, it was a sneer at the way people seldom or never put it in those terms, but rather approach it in a roundabout or sometimes euphemistic or other times downright dishonest way. Sorry, but I’m a great believer in bluntness.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:05:46 +0000

One factor favouring fertility is belief in the future. Here in spite of setbacks the US is (and always has been) stronger than Europe, based on confidence in God or enterprise or both.