What happens as we see a first world country's demographic crisis

[Jokodo]

I personally know quite a few baby boomers who had 7 or 8 siblings, but I don't know a single boomer who had that many children.

I'm not going to deny baby boomers had fewer kids than the generation(s) before them, but that's some bad case of selection bias there. The percentage of kids coming from large families will always be larger than the percentage of large families, for the rather obvious reason that large families have more kids. If there is, for example, one family with four kids for every four with one kid, the average family size over those five families will be 1.6 kids but the average size of the parental family per each of the 8 kids is 2.5. In other words, 20% of the families will have 4 kids, but 50% of the kids will come from such families.

In yet other words, you're 7 times morre likely to randomly meet a child from a 7 kid family than a parent - because you have 7 chances to do so!

 

[southernhybrid]

I personally know quite a few baby boomers who had 7 or 8 siblings, but I don't know a single boomer who had that many children.

I'm not going to deny baby boomers had fewer kids than the generation(s) before them, but that's some bad case of selection bias there. The percentage of kids coming from large families will always be larger than the percentage of large families, for the rather obvious reason that large families have more kids. If there is, for example, one family with four kids for every four with one kid, the average family size over those five families will be 1.6 kids but the average size of the parental family per each of the 8 kids is 2.5. In other words, 20% of the families will have 4 kids, but 50% of the kids will come from such families.

In yet other words, you're 7 times morre likely to randomly meet a child from a 7 kid family than a parent - because you have 7 chances to do so

I'm not going to deny baby boomers had fewer kids than the generation(s) before them, but that's some bad case of selection bias there. The percentage of kids coming from large families will always be larger than the percentage of large families, for the rather obvious reason that large families have more kids. If there is, for example, one family with four kids for every four with one kid, the average family size over those five families will be 1.6 kids but the average size of the parental family per each of the 8 kids is 2.5. In other words, 20% of the families will have 4 kids, but 50% of the kids will come from such families.

In yet other words, you're 7 times morre likely to randomly meet a child from a 7 kid family than a parent - because you have 7 chances to do so!

You totally missed the point, but I'm not going to argue with you. I looked up the statistics, and baby boomers did not have large numbers of children, which was what I was refuting when the claim was made that we did. We were told not to have a lot of children due to the increasing population, pollution etc. and most of chose not to have a lot of children. We also had better access to birth control. That was my only point. I think if there were exceptions, a lot of them were poor women who. had nothing but their children to give them purpose and value. I saw the same thing among women in younger generations. The poor had more than the middle class. I doubt you've worked with or cared for as many poor people as I have.

 

[bilby]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

 

[southernhybrid]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

True, but that was never what I was referring to. Unless I totally misunderstood his point, another poster made the claim that baby boomers chose to have lots of children. No, we didn't. But, this is getting kind of silly, so I'll leave it at that. I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

 

[Tharmas]

I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

Trying to cause a big sensation
Talking 'bout my generation
(The Who, for those who don't remember or are too young)

 

[rousseau]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

True, but that was never what I was referring to. Unless I totally misunderstood his point, another poster made the claim that baby boomers chose to have lots of children. No, we didn't. But, this is getting kind of silly, so I'll leave it at that. I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

FWIW, in Canada it looks like fertility dropped off a lot after the pill was introduced, and boomers did have fewer children after that point. But at the same time fertility rates have been dropping steadily since then, and in Canada are now at record lows. So take that for what you will.

Fertility in Canada, 1921 to 2022

This article provides an in-depth look at trends in fertility in Canada from 1921 to 2022. The evolution of the total fertility rate (TFR) over time is examined, with a special focus on shifts that have occurred following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shifts observed in Canada's TFR...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

 

[southernhybrid]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

True, but that was never what I was referring to. Unless I totally misunderstood his point, another poster made the claim that baby boomers chose to have lots of children. No, we didn't. But, this is getting kind of silly, so I'll leave it at that. I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

FWIW, in Canada it looks like fertility dropped off a lot after the pill was introduced, and boomers did have fewer children after that point. But at the same time fertility rates have been dropping steadily since then, and in Canada are now at record lows. So take that for what you will.

Fertility in Canada, 1921 to 2022

This article provides an in-depth look at trends in fertility in Canada from 1921 to 2022. The evolution of the total fertility rate (TFR) over time is examined, with a special focus on shifts that have occurred following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shifts observed in Canada's TFR...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Thanks for your post. it's mostly younger poor women who are having the most children in my area. As I said before, I think they just lack anything of value in their lives so they have a lot of kids to fill that hole. At least that's my guess. I've never understood why some of the poor young women who I worked with had anywhere from 4 to 10 kids. The two who I felt were smarter, only had one or two. I do agree that over all, fertility rates are lower. After all, we do have a lot of childless cat ladies in the US.

 

[rousseau]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

True, but that was never what I was referring to. Unless I totally misunderstood his point, another poster made the claim that baby boomers chose to have lots of children. No, we didn't. But, this is getting kind of silly, so I'll leave it at that. I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

FWIW, in Canada it looks like fertility dropped off a lot after the pill was introduced, and boomers did have fewer children after that point. But at the same time fertility rates have been dropping steadily since then, and in Canada are now at record lows. So take that for what you will.

Fertility in Canada, 1921 to 2022

This article provides an in-depth look at trends in fertility in Canada from 1921 to 2022. The evolution of the total fertility rate (TFR) over time is examined, with a special focus on shifts that have occurred following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shifts observed in Canada's TFR...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Thanks for your post. it's mostly younger poor women who are having the most children in my area. As I said before, I think they just lack anything of value in their lives so they have a lot of kids to fill that hole. At least that's my guess. I've never understood why some of the poor young women who I worked with had anywhere from 4 to 10 kids. The two who I felt were smarter, only had one or two. I do agree that over all, fertility rates are lower. After all, we do have a lot of childless cat ladies in the US.

Based on this chart, it looks like I was born during a slight reverberation from the baby boom years, between the late eighties and mid-nineties. I don't recall many families who had more than three kids, but there were a lot of kids in the town I grew up in during that time.

At least in Canada, something's changed recently, which maybe corresponds with the housing crisis. IIRC it was about 16/17 that housing prices started getting worse. There is a growing number of young people still living with their parents even into their late twenties. I guess that's what I've been getting at in this thread. For those in their childbearing years, the conditions are really not great for raising children.

 

[southernhybrid]

baby boomers did not have large numbers of children

Each baby boomer had a small number of children (on average); But baby boomers as a cohort had a lot of children, because there were a lot of baby boomers.

True, but that was never what I was referring to. Unless I totally misunderstood his point, another poster made the claim that baby boomers chose to have lots of children. No, we didn't. But, this is getting kind of silly, so I'll leave it at that. I just hate when people from other generations make unsubstantiated claims about my generation.

FWIW, in Canada it looks like fertility dropped off a lot after the pill was introduced, and boomers did have fewer children after that point. But at the same time fertility rates have been dropping steadily since then, and in Canada are now at record lows. So take that for what you will.

Fertility in Canada, 1921 to 2022

This article provides an in-depth look at trends in fertility in Canada from 1921 to 2022. The evolution of the total fertility rate (TFR) over time is examined, with a special focus on shifts that have occurred following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shifts observed in Canada's TFR...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Thanks for your post. it's mostly younger poor women who are having the most children in my area. As I said before, I think they just lack anything of value in their lives so they have a lot of kids to fill that hole. At least that's my guess. I've never understood why some of the poor young women who I worked with had anywhere from 4 to 10 kids. The two who I felt were smarter, only had one or two. I do agree that over all, fertility rates are lower. After all, we do have a lot of childless cat ladies in the US.

Based on this chart, it looks like I was born during a slight reverberation from the baby boom years, between the late eighties and mid-nineties. I don't recall many families who had more than three kids, but there were a lot of kids in the town I grew up in during that time.

At least in Canada, something's changed recently, which maybe corresponds with the housing crisis. IIRC it was about 16/17 that housing prices started getting worse. There is a growing number of young people still living with their parents even into their late twenties. I guess that's what I've been getting at in this thread. For those in their childbearing years, the conditions are really not great for raising children.

It's not that different here, to some extent. A 45 year old friend of mine who has 6 children, oldest daughter just chose to have a baby. They are living with my friend and since the "baby daddy" doesn't have a job and since the relationship is over, he agreed to care for the baby when she's at work. I assume he lives with his parents. Another friend of mine, who is 55, has two kids. One is a successful, married lawyer in ATL. The other one is 22, acts like a child, works at Walmart and lives with his mom.

But, some of my other boomer friends do have kids who are on their own. In fact, one baby boomer had to move in with her son because she could no longer afford her rent. People of all generations struggle to survive in many cases. That is becoming common. The baby boomers who own homes usually stayed married for many years, and had few children. There are many like that is my neighborhood.

 

[Jokodo]

I personally know quite a few baby boomers who had 7 or 8 siblings, but I don't know a single boomer who had that many children.

I'm not going to deny baby boomers had fewer kids than the generation(s) before them, but that's some bad case of selection bias there. The percentage of kids coming from large families will always be larger than the percentage of large families, for the rather obvious reason that large families have more kids. If there is, for example, one family with four kids for every four with one kid, the average family size over those five families will be 1.6 kids but the average size of the parental family per each of the 8 kids is 2.5. In other words, 20% of the families will have 4 kids, but 50% of the kids will come from such families.

In yet other words, you're 7 times morre likely to randomly meet a child from a 7 kid family than a parent - because you have 7 chances to do so

I'm not going to deny baby boomers had fewer kids than the generation(s) before them, but that's some bad case of selection bias there. The percentage of kids coming from large families will always be larger than the percentage of large families, for the rather obvious reason that large families have more kids. If there is, for example, one family with four kids for every four with one kid, the average family size over those five families will be 1.6 kids but the average size of the parental family per each of the 8 kids is 2.5. In other words, 20% of the families will have 4 kids, but 50% of the kids will come from such families.

In yet other words, you're 7 times morre likely to randomly meet a child from a 7 kid family than a parent - because you have 7 chances to do so!

You totally missed the point, but I'm not going to argue with you. I looked up the statistics, and baby boomers did not have large numbers of children, which was what I was refuting when the claim was made that we did. We were told not to have a lot of children due to the increasing population, pollution etc. and most of chose not to have a lot of children. We also had better access to birth control. That was my only point. I think if there were exceptions, a lot of them were poor women who. had nothing but their children to give them purpose and value. I saw the same thing among women in younger generations. The poor had more than the middle class. I doubt you've worked with or cared for as many poor people as I have.

I am not claiming baby boomers had more children than the generation before them. They did have fewer on average, I know that. I'm pointing out that the specific piece of anecdotal evidence toy presented, and which I quoted, isn't really any evidence at all, even if we ignored its anecdotal nature, because there's a heavy selection bias at work that makes it so that the average number of a person's siblings is expected to be higher, potentially much higher, than the average number of a parent's children.

If 1 in 6 families have 4 kids and 1 in 30 10 and the rest have just 1, 18.5% of people come from families with ten kids, and 37% from ones with 4. Between them, a solid majority of kids have 3 or more siblings, but those families make up only 20% of all families. Looking at a random sample of kids rather than parents or families systematically creates an overestimate of the previous generation's average family size, because large families are sampled multiple times.

 

[Swammerdami]

Since we've been talking about Baby Boomers, may I ask a trivia question unrelated to thread topic?

It's a sincere question and I am rather surprised that Google has been unable to answer it.

Many years ago, perhaps circa 1990, but that date is VERY approximate, there was a song (or more of a chant?) about Baby Boomers which I heard several times, presumably via a radio station. The refrain was "Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers" and the song lyrics were devoted to contrasting the Baby Boomers of the late 1960's with what that cohort had become by the late 1980's or thereabouts. The song was a series of couplets, each contrasting the young Boomers (Hippies?) with what they had become (Yuppies?). The only couplet I specifically remember was "Jane Fonda; Jane Fonda" -- a couplet suggesting that this celebrity had undergone major personality change.

One might think it would be easy to track down this song. Google "Lyrics Boomer Jane Fonda" should find it right away, right? But despite repeated efforts I've never been able to track the song down. Perhaps the lyrics were never incorporated into any of the many websites that show song lyrics.

It WAS an interesting song, and might have had insights relevant to a subthread here. Does anyone remember the song? Can anyone find it via Web search?

 

[Elixir]

Lyrics Boomer Jane Fonda

Mickey Avalon, “Jane Fonda”?