Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30[edit]

Birth rate of developed countries and poor countries[edit]

I always though people in developed countries have more money. I have seen that women in poor countries have more children that Europe, USA, Japan. Most parents in those developed countries struggle to raise two kids also. While many Sub Saharan rural women have 10 kids. How are poor people able to feed so many kids, while middle class American compain of rising costs? Some Italians are not having kids as they don't have money to feed extra family memeber.

In 1985, Niger had birth rate of 7.93 child per woman, Chad had birth rate of 7.04 child per woman. 1962, Zimbabwe had birth rate 7.25.

I checked Europe, USA never had such birth rate above 7 per women in past 200 years. Maximum 4.6 for European women 150 years ago. In twentieth century, no White country had birth rate above 5. Still, Europe has more population density than Africa.

Why people in rich countries say raising kids is costly, but people in poor countries have no problem raising many kids? CofeeGhana (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of living is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries, so it costs much more money to raise kids in rich countries, but parents there are generally rich enough to do so. In poor countries, it costs much less to raise each kid, although having fewer kids would mean more money available for raising each.

BUT, there is another more important factor. In most rich countries, people usually receive unemployment benefits if they cannot find work and other benefits if they are ill or disabled; they can often afford to save up money for their old age; they may earn occupational pensions from their employers, and they usually receive government-run old age pensions. By contrast, in poor countries some or all of these are unavailable, and unemployed, sick and old people are instead supported by their relatives, including their children. Because also infant and child mortality is higher in poor countries, parents have to have more children in order that enough of them live to adulthood to support those parents when old.

This can cause problems in countries where health standards are rapidly improving, because people continue to have many children out of cultural habits, resulting in a surplus population of young adults who cannot find work. This is called the Demographic trap, and is an important underlying reason behind, for example, recent unrest in various North African and Middle Eastern countries. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just cost of living -- in the conditions of many traditional agricultural societies, children were basically economic assets after about the age of 10, while in more economically-advanced societies, there's usually very little direct economic return for the time, effort, and expenses of child-rearing. In any case, the main article is demographic transition. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CofeeGhana Don't be mislead by statistics. The birth rates you are quoting are averages and include couples who have difficulty conceiving, or the woman has difficulty carrying the pregnancy to term. A look at many family trees will show families of 0, 1, or 2 children alongside those of ten or a dozen. The next point where statistics can easily mislead is to equate live births to successful rearing, the rate of infant mortality has varied a lot over history. For many and complex reasons the "White countries" (your term) had safer drinking water, paved streets and sewage/rubbish removal before other countires. These were the major changes in public health which lead to northwest Europe entering stage 2 of the demographic transition. If I remember correctly (from studying this at school 50 years ago) the UK entered stage 3 roughly at the start of WWI. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cost to raise a child varies by what parents deem necessary to provide for a child. In some parts of the world a $1000USD stroller is a reasonable need, in others a stroller is not necessary. Some parents plan to spend over $100,000 on education for their children while most parents across the globe do not and both groups see their choice as reasonable for properly raising a child. Of 19 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor is time. In western countries, you need a lot of education to have any chance at a job. Then you have to find a job, then another job that actually pays well enough to afford cheap housing. In some poor countries you may be able to survive on €50 per month, but in western Europe the poorest quality apartment will already cost you €500 per month. Then you have to find a mate (not trivial in a society where you don't even know the name of your neighbour and only communicate with computers; most people still meet their colleagues, but many jobs have a strong gender bias, so that doesn't help), then a home that's big enough to have children. It's career first, then children. In my country, the average age of a woman when she has her first child is about 30. Starting at that age, 3 children is about the limit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect not mentioned is the wide and easy availability of contraception, and of the very idea of family planning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing the OP notes is called the Demographic economic paradox. That links to an article where you can read more about the phenomenon. --Jayron 32 11:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]