This book was one I found every opportunity to chat about with friends after I read it. I have also given as a gift to several people upon their 1st pregnancy.
Only negative, never been able to get my wife on board with, "society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience" . 😊
I don't think monetary rewards will work to incent more children. Instead, what is needed is a return to motherhood providing status.
Maybe this is too far out but I wonder if maybe the government or an outside organization does a riff on Gold Star Mothers but does it for families and call them Blue Star Mothers or Families or some such thing (I’m thinking families because we want the kids to be born in wedlock). Then the question is, how does the woman/family advertise it? Maybe jewelry? Maybe something in the window. Maybe a badge for online. You get a star for each kid.
Perhaps he's already written on this, but I haven't seen it.... I've thought Bryan could bring two of his areas together, having kids & feminism..... seems to me one of the big negatives coming out of feminism is the that the status of motherhood seemed to fall below that of having a career outside the home. For many women, they spend their 20's & 30's in pursuit of that money & status only to find having as many kids as they'd potentially like impossible biologically later.
> Once you accept that our society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience, which in turn raises selfishly optimal family size
I don't really see this. I mean, I agree that society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture - that's true enough. But if anything, I think acceptance of that would *reduce* fertility; if your parenting efforts have no effect, why bother?
As much as I'd like to believe the "desired fertility" data disseminated by Lyman Stone and others, I've always been a bit skeptical. In addition to the Mueller effect on the prospective desired fertility questions, there is the weak evidence from the retrospective questions to women like "How many children do you wish you had?" In that case, it would be an exceedingly rare woman who would be willing to say that she wished she had had fewer children (i.e., I wish one or more of my children never existed).
Lyman always seems to be open to evidence and application of more rigorous methods to generate more accurate findings. I'm looking forward to reading his findings around the Mueller effect.
Agreed. I do think that there is a social shame still today (despite what some TikToks would have you believe) with people outright saying they don’t want kids. It’s less punitive than in the 50s but it’s still a position that many would qualify as selfish. So they say they want kids but what they really mean is:
“I would like to be in the position of having had children who are now adults and be satisfied of my relationship with them. Also potentially have them take care of me later because I don’t want to be lonely and old. But I don’t want to go through 20 years of taking care of them. I still want to travel whenever I want”.
Our society simply produces too many people who view taking care of others for long periods of time as too difficult. They would need an insane amount of money to be able to continue with the lifestyle they want and still have kids.
1) "Having fewer kids than they want to have" is obviously a framing mechanism to get people to support higher transfers from non/low breeders to breeders. It's a "feel good inclusive" messaging rather than "you're deadbeats milking the system" or "your childlessness is morally deficient".
2) I don't think your framing about helicopter parenting is that different than "your childlessness is morally deficient". There is an element of "you can improve", but its muddled (be a better parent by not being as good a parent) and doesn't do anything for those that can no longer have children (the median voter).
3) Money will fix it.
But it needs to be a lot of money, in cash, and given to the right people in the right way.
Ultimately, I don't think parents of large families should be paying FICA taxes. A big part of our problem is that those that have kids and those that don't are entitled to the same retirement benefits, even though the latter contributed the future taxpayers (at their personal expense) and the former didn't. We aren't going to end retirement benefits so it has to be done through differential tax rates in the present. Balance that out and I think we will get a correction.
But perhaps the problem is not personally-desired fertility either, but rather ignorance of the future satisfactions that fertility can provide. This ignorance in turn may reflect the malign cultural influence of institutions that regard parental investments in children to be a hindrance to their own economic or political interests, and thus are motivated to promote anti-natalist values.
"society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience"
In general, society burdens people fairly severely for their parenthood - a phenomenon we could term a "no child policy" in the west. The opportunity cost of having kids is high enough as it is, but social and legal forces make it artificially high.
I agree with both Bryan and Lyman. This isn't either/or.
People are having fewer children than they would like to have. Lyman is correct that demographic changes are an important cause, particularly resulting from decreased marriage rates, cultural norms, costs of living, and an increased age of first marriage.
People should desire more children than they currently do. Bryan is correct that most people stress out about having more (or any!) children, and while desiring success for your kids is great, good parenting makes little difference for most traits.
This book was one I found every opportunity to chat about with friends after I read it. I have also given as a gift to several people upon their 1st pregnancy.
Only negative, never been able to get my wife on board with, "society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience" . 😊
I don't think monetary rewards will work to incent more children. Instead, what is needed is a return to motherhood providing status.
Maybe this is too far out but I wonder if maybe the government or an outside organization does a riff on Gold Star Mothers but does it for families and call them Blue Star Mothers or Families or some such thing (I’m thinking families because we want the kids to be born in wedlock). Then the question is, how does the woman/family advertise it? Maybe jewelry? Maybe something in the window. Maybe a badge for online. You get a star for each kid.
Money provides status. Money will work.
But it needs to actually be enough money to buy status. And it needs to be money, not in-kind services or subsidies.
If you run the math, its not hard to do, its just a matter of political will.
Perhaps he's already written on this, but I haven't seen it.... I've thought Bryan could bring two of his areas together, having kids & feminism..... seems to me one of the big negatives coming out of feminism is the that the status of motherhood seemed to fall below that of having a career outside the home. For many women, they spend their 20's & 30's in pursuit of that money & status only to find having as many kids as they'd potentially like impossible biologically later.
> Once you accept that our society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience, which in turn raises selfishly optimal family size
I don't really see this. I mean, I agree that society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture - that's true enough. But if anything, I think acceptance of that would *reduce* fertility; if your parenting efforts have no effect, why bother?
As much as I'd like to believe the "desired fertility" data disseminated by Lyman Stone and others, I've always been a bit skeptical. In addition to the Mueller effect on the prospective desired fertility questions, there is the weak evidence from the retrospective questions to women like "How many children do you wish you had?" In that case, it would be an exceedingly rare woman who would be willing to say that she wished she had had fewer children (i.e., I wish one or more of my children never existed).
Lyman always seems to be open to evidence and application of more rigorous methods to generate more accurate findings. I'm looking forward to reading his findings around the Mueller effect.
Agreed. I do think that there is a social shame still today (despite what some TikToks would have you believe) with people outright saying they don’t want kids. It’s less punitive than in the 50s but it’s still a position that many would qualify as selfish. So they say they want kids but what they really mean is:
“I would like to be in the position of having had children who are now adults and be satisfied of my relationship with them. Also potentially have them take care of me later because I don’t want to be lonely and old. But I don’t want to go through 20 years of taking care of them. I still want to travel whenever I want”.
Our society simply produces too many people who view taking care of others for long periods of time as too difficult. They would need an insane amount of money to be able to continue with the lifestyle they want and still have kids.
Thank God for the new cover.
1) "Having fewer kids than they want to have" is obviously a framing mechanism to get people to support higher transfers from non/low breeders to breeders. It's a "feel good inclusive" messaging rather than "you're deadbeats milking the system" or "your childlessness is morally deficient".
2) I don't think your framing about helicopter parenting is that different than "your childlessness is morally deficient". There is an element of "you can improve", but its muddled (be a better parent by not being as good a parent) and doesn't do anything for those that can no longer have children (the median voter).
3) Money will fix it.
But it needs to be a lot of money, in cash, and given to the right people in the right way.
Ultimately, I don't think parents of large families should be paying FICA taxes. A big part of our problem is that those that have kids and those that don't are entitled to the same retirement benefits, even though the latter contributed the future taxpayers (at their personal expense) and the former didn't. We aren't going to end retirement benefits so it has to be done through differential tax rates in the present. Balance that out and I think we will get a correction.
But perhaps the problem is not personally-desired fertility either, but rather ignorance of the future satisfactions that fertility can provide. This ignorance in turn may reflect the malign cultural influence of institutions that regard parental investments in children to be a hindrance to their own economic or political interests, and thus are motivated to promote anti-natalist values.
"society grossly overestimates the effects of nurture on children’s adult outcomes, parents can relax in good conscience"
In general, society burdens people fairly severely for their parenthood - a phenomenon we could term a "no child policy" in the west. The opportunity cost of having kids is high enough as it is, but social and legal forces make it artificially high.
I agree with both Bryan and Lyman. This isn't either/or.
People are having fewer children than they would like to have. Lyman is correct that demographic changes are an important cause, particularly resulting from decreased marriage rates, cultural norms, costs of living, and an increased age of first marriage.
People should desire more children than they currently do. Bryan is correct that most people stress out about having more (or any!) children, and while desiring success for your kids is great, good parenting makes little difference for most traits.
I'm trying to incent MY OWN CHILDREN to increase my progeny, preferably within wedlock, but the Elon Musk approach is OK, too.
Even my wife isn't really on this bandwagon, and she KNOWS BETTER (we only have two)!
What if I beat them (all) daily?
That could backfire badly ...
Glad to hear about the reprint! This book fits in so nicely with changing contemporary concerns that I’m sure it will have a wonderful Renaissance!