SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Half a million fewer children? The coming COVID baby bust:
The COVID-19 episode will likely lead to a large, lasting baby bust. The pandemic has thrust the country into an economic recession. Economic reasoning and past evidence suggest that this will lead people to have fewer children. The decline in births could be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births next year. We base this expectation on lessons drawn from economic studies of fertility behavior, along with data presented here from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the 1918 Spanish Flu.
[...] When the public health crisis first took hold, some people playfully speculated that there would be a spike in births in nine months, as people were "stuck home" with their romantic partners. Such speculation is based on persistent myths about birth spikes occurring nine months after blizzards or major electricity blackouts. As it turns out, those stories tend not to hold up to statistical examination (Udry, 1970). But the COVID-19 crisis is amounting to much more than a temporary stay-at-home order. It is leading to tremendous economic loss, uncertainty, and insecurity. That is why birth rates will tumble.
[...] There is ample evidence that birth rates are, in fact, pro-cyclical. This is shown, for instance, in the work by Dettling and Kearney (2014) described above. Their analysis of birth rates in metropolitan areas finds that all else equal, a one percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in birth rates. Schaller (2016) analyzes the relationship between state-level unemployment rates and birth rates, and finds that a one percentage-point increase in state-year unemployment rates is associated with a 0.9 to 2.2 percent decrease in birth rates. Other evidence shows that women whose husbands lose their jobs at some point during their marriage ultimately have fewer children (Lindo, 2010). This suggests that transitory changes in economic conditions lead to changes in birth rates.
[...] What are the likely implications of the COVID-19 episode for fertility? The monthly unemployment rate jumped from 3.5 percent to 14.7 percent in April and to 13.3 percent in May. Note that the BLS also indicate that technical issues in collecting these data likely mean that the actual unemployment rates in those months were likely 5 and 3 percentage points higher, respectively. That would bring them to about 19.7 and 16.3 percent. Although it is difficult to forecast the 2020 annual unemployment rate, assuming a 7 to 10 percentage-point jump to 10.6 to 13.6 percent seems reasonable. Based on the findings presented above, this economic shock alone implies a 7 to 10 percent drop in births next year. With 3.8 million births occurring in 2019, that would amount to a decline of between 266,000 and 380,000 births in 2021.
On top of the economic impact, there will likely be a further decline in births as a direct result of the public health crisis and the uncertainty and anxiety it creates, and perhaps to some extent, social distancing. Our analysis of the Spanish Flu indicated a 15 percent decline in annual births in a pandemic that was not accompanied by a major recession. And this occurred during a period in which no modern contraception existed to easily regulated fertility.
Combining these two effects, we could see a drop of perhaps 300,000 to 500,000 births in the U.S. Additional reductions in births may be seen if the labor market remains weak beyond 2020. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are likely to be long-lasting and will lead to a permanent loss of income for many people. We expect that many of these births will not just be delayed – but will never happen. There will be a COVID-19 baby bust. That will be yet another cost of this terrible episode.
Journal References:
1.) Melissa S . Kearney, Phillip B . Levine. Subsidized Contraception, Fertility, and Sexual Behavior, (DOI: rest.91.1.137)
2.) Melissa S. Kearney, Riley Wilson. Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom, Review of Economics and Statistics (DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00739)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)
Bzzt wrong.
In OUR "social contract", "consequences" are but means to an end, which is (advertised as) improving lives overall. For this goal, some actions get declared "misdeeds" and some disincentives get used to reduce their occurrence. Ideally, societal costs of those should be balanced, so that the efforts to (further) reduce misdeeds do not do more harm than the misdeeds themselves.
The people who make the means, "consequences", into an end in itself, usually want one thing and one thing only; a way to safely enjoy torment of fellow human beings. No sane person should be joining their ranks; the damage that the crazies do if unleashed, far outweighs any intended good from "being tough on crime".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @05:11PM
There are many behaviors that completely damage society, and few would argue otherwise, but we accept them because our social contract dictates that such *ought* be accepted. And vice versa we ban many behaviors that likely are, in and of themselves, not only not damaging but perhaps even beneficial.
An example of the former would be social media. Screwing up society something fierce, but is ostensibly the embodiment of free expression which is a cornerstone of our social contract. Examples of the latter are endless. I'm not sure which is the most heinous so I'll simply pick one of the most absurd. In most places in America it is illegal to camp on your own land for more than two weeks. No I am not making that up.
So yes, the social contract and the punishments resultant from it (and our law) are in large part arbitrary. What rationale that does exist is largely subjective which is why a corporate crime that results in unimaginable losses almost never sees jailtime and generally gets a very gentle slap on the wrist, at worst. By contrast low level crime resulting in incomparably small societal losses can see major jail time, even in cases where the acts are not directly disruptive. Again, as above, copyright infringement is a good example.