[nsb1]

Just plain census and GDP data shows that the richer you are, the fewer children you have. As poor countries climb out of poverty, their birth rate drops. As rich countries get richer, their birth rate drops below population-sustaining levels.

http://tinyurl.com/Birth-rate-per-income

[joshuahedlund]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is exactly why the UN has predicted a slowing of population growth with an eventual peak of 10-11B in several decades.

However this article is suggesting a much more drastic slowing and much lower peak. I am interested in the evidence or assumptions that are different between these two forecasts.

[ZeroGravitas]

UN projections have also been dropping over time:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022

> Its previous release projected that the world population would be around 10.88 billion in 2100 and would not yet have peaked.

> In this new release, the UN projects that the global population will peak before the end of the century – in 2086, at just over 10.4 billion people.

> There are several reasons for this earlier and lower peak. One is that the UN expects fertility rates to fall more quickly in low-income countries compared to previous revisions. It also expects less of a ‘rebound’ in fertility rates across high-income countries in the second half of the century.

[thejackgoode]

>the richer you are, the fewer children you have

Not entirely true, there is a reverse-parabolic correlation [1] After certain income level, number of children per family increases.

Middle class is shooting itself in the foot economically by having children, that's why there's such correlation.

1. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Number-of-children-top-h...

[FirmwareBurner]

>Middle class is shooting itself in the foot economically by having children, that's why there's such correlation.

Middle class are the worst off for having kids, at least here in Europe.

  • The upper class can afford as many kids as they want, no problem.

  • The lower class gets tax breaks and subsidies from the state according to how many kids they have and how low their income is, the more money they get from the state, so they also have a lot of kids because every extra kid means a net monetary benefit.

  • The middle class gets the shaft as they bear the brunt of highest income tax brackets to fund the state coffers, and also get the lowest amounts of child subsidies because their income is considered good enough, so they're the ones having the least amount of kids.

[hackeraccount]

That's sort of fascinating. I mean is that an absolute or relative thing? If we were all as rich as Bill Gates would we all have more children? Or if we were all as rich as Bill Gates - but Gates in turn was wealthier still - would the number of children we and he had remain the same?