Of course educating women decreases fertility rate.
-They learn about birth control and the nature of fertility in general
-They become empowered
-They seek careers
-The forces of tradition/religion will have less influence over them
Every aspect of this will and does lead to fewer births.
I don’t get how you, post after post, can be so blind about this when you’re the type of writer whose whole thing is that he can see the signals through the noise: every single thing societies have done in pursuit of women’s advancement lowers the fertility rate. Legalizing abortion, de-emphasizing the importance of motherhood, promoting birth control, empowering women, educating girls, etc. These all may be positive things in various ways but they have a downside as well.
By all means, let’s find a way to keep women’s equality and also increase the birth rate at the same time. But at least be intellectually honest about it.
James, I don't ask a lot of my readers; I know that as a writer, it's my job to make myself clear.
But if you're going to call me "blind" and intellectually dishonest, I have to ask that you at least read what I wrote.
What I wrote was:
"So it may be that while giving girls an education reduces fertility rates from the unsustainable, explosive level of 7-8 children per women to maybe 3 or 4, the “last mile” — the drop of fertility below the replacement rate — is due to something else entirely."
Even if every single effect you're talking about is real and important, that doesn't mean the causal relationship between women's education and fertility just keeps going and going forever. At some point, all those effects get saturated. Once you know about birth control and abortion, then you know. Once you have a career, then you have a career. And so on.
It's not that hard a concept to understand that sometimes, effects get maxed out, and you can't just keep doing more of the same thing to keep getting more of the same result. I'm not "blind" or dishonest to suggest that idea, especially not when there's some data to support it.
Having a child will take an enormous chunk of your energy and time for years on end. It is fully equivalent to the energy and time involved in getting a PhD. Before birth control, it just happened...now motherhood is a daunting prospect. If you don't have a strong desire for children, which many men and women do have, parenthood is Likely to decrease precipitously, as it has.
"By all means, let’s find a way to keep women’s equality and also increase the birth rate at the same time. But at least be intellectually honest about it."
The intellectually honest position is that it's not possible.
That's fine, maybe it isn't, but we need to have that conversation then rather than whistling and pretending we don't know what this bizarre thing is that's making all countries have fewer kids as they develop.
Though as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Israel's birth rate is significantly higher than other western nations, even among the non-Orthodox/Hasidic
Yep. We should also mention that there's been a huge emphasis on DOING YOUR OWN THING/FOLLOWING YOUR DREAM/MAKING YOURSELF HAPPY and that has gone hand in hand with a decreasing emphasis on family, community, and duty. Whereas the Israelis still have that strong emphasis on family and community
Importance of family doesn't automatically mean having 3+ kids. You can think family is important and still have 1 or 2 kids and that'll be below replacement rate.
One of the biggest that you imply but do not mention directly is that if women wait until later to have children, fertility declines with age.
In addition, waiting means fewer total years to be of child bearing age that are actually used in producing children.
So yes, it is easy to see where "rightists" as they are referred to here, are confusing mere correctional info with causation in that women who are busy with school are not using those years having kids and the reverse may also be true that those who have not had children are still able to attend school in some poorer nations.
Women who stay in school longer (or maybe a career) have fewer years that are then devoted to child bearing and then add to this the fact hat fertility declines with age, as well.
Thus it is not "education" causing less fertility it is the biological clock - tick - tick and basic math.
Maybe "rightists" should stay in school longer and learn about correlation vs causation and basic statistics.
I want to add my two cents' worth to the question of fertility rates. Over the years, I have seen women become more equal to men in many areas, but there is still a long way to go. Deciding to have a child or children is a lifetime commitment. The burden of this decision still rests unfairly on women. Their ability to earn money is impacted more than a man's; child caring and housework fall more heavily on women, and their health is put at a greater risk than a man's. If our society truly wants to increase fertility, it will need to provide affordable child care, a more balanced home life, and more equal pay rates. Currently, women are not regarded as equal partners to men.
Additionally, under this present administration, misogynists have been given an even bigger voice than ever before. Women's health care has been unfavorably impacted by men, making childbirth even more dangerous. Infant mortality is higher in America than in many other developed countries. All of this is a consequence of men wanting to control women and keep them as second-class citizens.
Obviously, I cannot speak for all women, but I feel that until these issues are corrected, we will not see an answer to the fertility problem.
Even Scandinavian countries with the most supportive policies in place for mothers in the world haven’t been able to meaningfully increase the fertility rate. In fact I’ve heard that in the US for example the decline in fertility rate is almost entirely due to less educated people having less children (and stuff like teen pregnancy dropping off a cliff in the past few decades). This suggests that all the efforts to make it easier for educated, middle class women have children may not work simply because they have already made up their minds about it. The only thing I’ve heard about that actually has increased the fertility rate in any practical way is having mandatory military service, but allowing people to get out of it by having children.
The complaints I hear continually from Millennials and Get Zers focus on the cost of housing and higher education and, from Gen Xers, health care. As an old guy, I can't help thinking that, even adjusting for factors such as the size of houses or the amenities that are now part of the college experience, they have a valid complaint. When it comes to health care, though, I doubt most people, at least those middle age and older, would trade away today's care at today's prices for the care and costs common a generation ago.
Regarding housing: One simple comparison I often make to explain what it was like in the olden days of the late 60s and early 70s is the number of hours or days of work it took me to pay my rent living on the Lower East Side of NYC. I could pay my rent working two 6-8 hour shifts per month driving a cab, although I was living in a fourth floor walkup and contending with roaches in my apartment and crime on the streets below.
Higher ed: No loans, thanks to a boost from LBJ's expansion of Social Security benefits to the dependents of deceased parents. Even without that, I could have covered most of my tuition and room and board working full-time in the summer and part-time during the school year in minimum wage jobs, as many of my contemporaries did.
Health care: I didn't care. I was young and healthy.
There are a lot of other factors that should be taken into account in making these inter-generational comparisons. I can think of two more:
--The effect of minimum wage increases (and upward pressure on wages at the next levels) in a growing number of states over the past two decades -- which could be showing up in the numbers for those in their 20s and 30s;
--The ongoing transfer of wealth (including housing) from Baby Boomers to Gen Xers and Millennials as the Boomers die and past their inheritances on to fewer children -- which is likely to accelerate in the next decade.
When I think of the future for my daughter and grandkids, financial help now and inheritances later from me and my ex will probably make the difference for them in their ability to afford a house and, for my grandkids, college. I enjoyed some of those same benefits myself -- from parents and taxpayers. Wealth transfer is a major part of sustaining the middle class for those who start out there -- although getting to that point is another question. And cutbacks in government support for higher ed points to another challenge.
The story those generational charts show is still being written.
Yes, Noah points to the PCE index, saying it's an indication of what people actually spend their money on to say that pay is up. But the PCE doesn't include the cost of buying a house.
Here's what google's AI had to say about it...
"Home prices have grown much faster than income: One report states that home values have soared 162% since 2000, while income has increased only 78%. Another source indicates house prices rose about 65 percent between 2000 and 2024, while median household income barely rose over the same period.
The house-price-to-income ratio has increased: This ratio compares the median home price to the median household income. In 2000, it reached 4 for the first time, and by 2023, it had climbed to 5.3. Experts suggest that a healthy ratio should be around 2.6."
Noah, I’d like you to elaborate a bit more on why you think your next financial crisis is Crypto or AI versus our debt.
No, we have no idea when our debt will become a financial crisis, or are you saying that our debt is not a crisis? That we are more like Japan in that sense. we’ll have zombie banks and zombie country.
I am happy to see prison population going down (at least pre-Pam Bondi), but I can't help wondering if the reduction in juvenile arrests is because nobody seems to get arrested for much of anything any more. There's no point in even reporting property crimes, street take-overs, shoplifting, even car theft, because the cops are too busy doing something else.
Well, check out the National Crime Victimization Survey. When you go around and ask people "Have you been a victim of a crime recently?", a lot fewer are saying "Yes". That's data I trust.
Now if only the drop in crime could be accompanied by an equivalent drop in TV crime shows. (please note my comment is aurally complemented by the "Ba-Bahm!" of Law & Order, SVU)
In that female education versus fertility chart, does anyone have a version with the countries labeled? The negative correlation is strong, by it looks like there are some positive outliers worth studying -- in particular, a few countries come in around 12 years of education and still have a TFR of 3 or slightly higher. One other country is at 10 years education and >4 TFR. What are those countries? Can we learn some things from them?
I believe that the high birth rate in Israel is pretty much confined to the Hasidic community, which does not practice birth control and holds “be fruitful and multiply, " as a divine commandment. I think secular Israelis have a birth rate similar to the rest of the modern world. Consequently, the percentage of Israeli citizens who are Hasidic Jews is rising.
The education vs. fertility conclusion seems logical; women without any access to education don't have a 'career path' outside of being a mother, and as education levels increase they have more opportunities so the number of children they have goes down.
Bummer that all of us are affected by a financial crisis, even if you don't speculate yourself. So welcome to the Bitcoin Roller Coaster ... taking us to an uncharted future!
I am wondering if the development of research topics in economics may to some extent be also due to the increasing number of PhD students? Since demand for theoretical macroeconomists is signficiantly lower in the combined non-academic and academic job market, PhD students are afraid that putting a too high focus on such topics may lead to a career dead end in case the scientific career fails. Instead data science jobs were booming during the last years creating incentives to do as much data work as possible as a preparation for such jobs (but this may end due to Gen AI and new skill requirements for AI engineers). My observations are based on Germany.
From what I am seeing currently, "AI engineers" are just software engineers working in deployment of Gen AI solutions though. In some companies the job ad specifically mentioned these roles as "LLM engineers".
These roles are different with data scientists altogether, so I don't think they clash with each other at all.
So Boomer and Gen X crime is up, while Millennial crime is down. Gen Y is exceptionally law abiding. Presumably it helps that Gen Y wasn't dosed with lead like their grandparents.
To combine your two themes—the decline in fertility rates among African Americans and the decrease in teen sexual activity, as well as the reduction in crime—it's important to recognize that they are related, but not in the way you might think. New technologies, such as internet entertainment and affordable travel, have improved real income and overall quality of life, even though relative inequality has increased.
This shift places a significant value on leisure time. As a result, potential inner-city criminals are more likely to spend their time on Instagram, playing video games, and traveling, rather than going out to commit crimes. The enjoyment and value of these entertainment options create an incentive for them not to engage in criminal activity, as they risk losing their leisure time if they go to jail.
Similarly, this change impacts fertility rates. People are less inclined to have children because they prioritize their leisure time, which is increasingly valuable due to new technologies. Ironically, the best policy to encourage higher birth rates might involve taxing luxury consumption, specifically in entertainment and travel, but this could unintentionally increase crime rates.
The ratio of incomes to home prices has plunged from what it was 50 years ago, brother. I don't give a hoot what else you put in your consumer price index basket; if health insurance and tuition and mortgage payments are doubled, relative to income, versus what they were 50 years ago, then no amount of your stupid tap dancing matters at all Noah. You keep writing like a smug jerk who doesn't remember that other people don't own a home and yet want to.
Years ago, a co-worker suggested that grandparents should do most of child rearing. It is less burdensome on the parents who can more easily pursue careers, easier to have kids at a young age, when the grandparents are more likely capable of doing the work. I have no idea how that idea could become wide spread but it suggests higher fertility but with women still educated.
This is the only way to increase fertility rates. It’s alien to most Americans because moving away from your parents is considered a rite of passage to adulthood. All those who keep mentioning free childcare have no clue that you still have to take care of your kid after work hours.
Many societies in developing world still do this, and as soon as the first glimpse of modernity comes, with independent lifestyle even in these countries, fertility starts to shrink!
I wonder if the causation of both phenomena is the decline in extended families and the corresponding rise in nuclear families. We don't remember a time when extended families were the norm, but in other parts of the world, the prevalence of extended families correlates (I believe, and with no data to support this claim) with fertility and (again, I guess) with _more_ academic achievement by girls.
Hoping that someone has some data to illuminate this hypothesis.
Meta's AI SPV of $26 Billion doesn't seem that scary compared to their current financials. That's half a year's net income. If you add it to Q1 2025 long term debt ($61B) you get around $87B of LT debt. That's not much higher than 2024's net income. It's important to point out that they are being weird in their structuring but the amounts don't freak me out.
Of course educating women decreases fertility rate.
-They learn about birth control and the nature of fertility in general
-They become empowered
-They seek careers
-The forces of tradition/religion will have less influence over them
Every aspect of this will and does lead to fewer births.
I don’t get how you, post after post, can be so blind about this when you’re the type of writer whose whole thing is that he can see the signals through the noise: every single thing societies have done in pursuit of women’s advancement lowers the fertility rate. Legalizing abortion, de-emphasizing the importance of motherhood, promoting birth control, empowering women, educating girls, etc. These all may be positive things in various ways but they have a downside as well.
By all means, let’s find a way to keep women’s equality and also increase the birth rate at the same time. But at least be intellectually honest about it.
James, I don't ask a lot of my readers; I know that as a writer, it's my job to make myself clear.
But if you're going to call me "blind" and intellectually dishonest, I have to ask that you at least read what I wrote.
What I wrote was:
"So it may be that while giving girls an education reduces fertility rates from the unsustainable, explosive level of 7-8 children per women to maybe 3 or 4, the “last mile” — the drop of fertility below the replacement rate — is due to something else entirely."
Even if every single effect you're talking about is real and important, that doesn't mean the causal relationship between women's education and fertility just keeps going and going forever. At some point, all those effects get saturated. Once you know about birth control and abortion, then you know. Once you have a career, then you have a career. And so on.
It's not that hard a concept to understand that sometimes, effects get maxed out, and you can't just keep doing more of the same thing to keep getting more of the same result. I'm not "blind" or dishonest to suggest that idea, especially not when there's some data to support it.
Having a child will take an enormous chunk of your energy and time for years on end. It is fully equivalent to the energy and time involved in getting a PhD. Before birth control, it just happened...now motherhood is a daunting prospect. If you don't have a strong desire for children, which many men and women do have, parenthood is Likely to decrease precipitously, as it has.
Yep. My wife and I waited ten years while focusing on our careers and single lives. Before birth control,
A. That would have been much harder without having an accident
B. My wife would probably have thought her role was to make a family
"By all means, let’s find a way to keep women’s equality and also increase the birth rate at the same time. But at least be intellectually honest about it."
The intellectually honest position is that it's not possible.
That's fine, maybe it isn't, but we need to have that conversation then rather than whistling and pretending we don't know what this bizarre thing is that's making all countries have fewer kids as they develop.
Though as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Israel's birth rate is significantly higher than other western nations, even among the non-Orthodox/Hasidic
The cultural/religion aspect? (Even among secular Jews importance of family is central part of the culture)
Yep. We should also mention that there's been a huge emphasis on DOING YOUR OWN THING/FOLLOWING YOUR DREAM/MAKING YOURSELF HAPPY and that has gone hand in hand with a decreasing emphasis on family, community, and duty. Whereas the Israelis still have that strong emphasis on family and community
Importance of family doesn't automatically mean having 3+ kids. You can think family is important and still have 1 or 2 kids and that'll be below replacement rate.
Sure. I have 2 kids and I'm done there.
But if everyone had at least 1-2 we wouldn't be in this pickle. South Korea has a 0.78 TFR!!!
One of the biggest that you imply but do not mention directly is that if women wait until later to have children, fertility declines with age.
In addition, waiting means fewer total years to be of child bearing age that are actually used in producing children.
So yes, it is easy to see where "rightists" as they are referred to here, are confusing mere correctional info with causation in that women who are busy with school are not using those years having kids and the reverse may also be true that those who have not had children are still able to attend school in some poorer nations.
Women who stay in school longer (or maybe a career) have fewer years that are then devoted to child bearing and then add to this the fact hat fertility declines with age, as well.
Thus it is not "education" causing less fertility it is the biological clock - tick - tick and basic math.
Maybe "rightists" should stay in school longer and learn about correlation vs causation and basic statistics.
Well all the factors about education I mentioned are real factors, but yours is valid and important too so I am glad to add it to the list.
Yes, I only meant to imply that this was in addition to your other valid points.
Strong agree, Noah is putting his blinders on for this topic.
Everything you said also applies to men though. My grandpa has 6 kids, as did 2 of his siblings. The other one had 4. I want no more than 2.
Is the "problem" women being educated or education in general?
I want to add my two cents' worth to the question of fertility rates. Over the years, I have seen women become more equal to men in many areas, but there is still a long way to go. Deciding to have a child or children is a lifetime commitment. The burden of this decision still rests unfairly on women. Their ability to earn money is impacted more than a man's; child caring and housework fall more heavily on women, and their health is put at a greater risk than a man's. If our society truly wants to increase fertility, it will need to provide affordable child care, a more balanced home life, and more equal pay rates. Currently, women are not regarded as equal partners to men.
Additionally, under this present administration, misogynists have been given an even bigger voice than ever before. Women's health care has been unfavorably impacted by men, making childbirth even more dangerous. Infant mortality is higher in America than in many other developed countries. All of this is a consequence of men wanting to control women and keep them as second-class citizens.
Obviously, I cannot speak for all women, but I feel that until these issues are corrected, we will not see an answer to the fertility problem.
Even Scandinavian countries with the most supportive policies in place for mothers in the world haven’t been able to meaningfully increase the fertility rate. In fact I’ve heard that in the US for example the decline in fertility rate is almost entirely due to less educated people having less children (and stuff like teen pregnancy dropping off a cliff in the past few decades). This suggests that all the efforts to make it easier for educated, middle class women have children may not work simply because they have already made up their minds about it. The only thing I’ve heard about that actually has increased the fertility rate in any practical way is having mandatory military service, but allowing people to get out of it by having children.
The complaints I hear continually from Millennials and Get Zers focus on the cost of housing and higher education and, from Gen Xers, health care. As an old guy, I can't help thinking that, even adjusting for factors such as the size of houses or the amenities that are now part of the college experience, they have a valid complaint. When it comes to health care, though, I doubt most people, at least those middle age and older, would trade away today's care at today's prices for the care and costs common a generation ago.
Regarding housing: One simple comparison I often make to explain what it was like in the olden days of the late 60s and early 70s is the number of hours or days of work it took me to pay my rent living on the Lower East Side of NYC. I could pay my rent working two 6-8 hour shifts per month driving a cab, although I was living in a fourth floor walkup and contending with roaches in my apartment and crime on the streets below.
Higher ed: No loans, thanks to a boost from LBJ's expansion of Social Security benefits to the dependents of deceased parents. Even without that, I could have covered most of my tuition and room and board working full-time in the summer and part-time during the school year in minimum wage jobs, as many of my contemporaries did.
Health care: I didn't care. I was young and healthy.
There are a lot of other factors that should be taken into account in making these inter-generational comparisons. I can think of two more:
--The effect of minimum wage increases (and upward pressure on wages at the next levels) in a growing number of states over the past two decades -- which could be showing up in the numbers for those in their 20s and 30s;
--The ongoing transfer of wealth (including housing) from Baby Boomers to Gen Xers and Millennials as the Boomers die and past their inheritances on to fewer children -- which is likely to accelerate in the next decade.
When I think of the future for my daughter and grandkids, financial help now and inheritances later from me and my ex will probably make the difference for them in their ability to afford a house and, for my grandkids, college. I enjoyed some of those same benefits myself -- from parents and taxpayers. Wealth transfer is a major part of sustaining the middle class for those who start out there -- although getting to that point is another question. And cutbacks in government support for higher ed points to another challenge.
The story those generational charts show is still being written.
Yes, Noah points to the PCE index, saying it's an indication of what people actually spend their money on to say that pay is up. But the PCE doesn't include the cost of buying a house.
Here's what google's AI had to say about it...
"Home prices have grown much faster than income: One report states that home values have soared 162% since 2000, while income has increased only 78%. Another source indicates house prices rose about 65 percent between 2000 and 2024, while median household income barely rose over the same period.
The house-price-to-income ratio has increased: This ratio compares the median home price to the median household income. In 2000, it reached 4 for the first time, and by 2023, it had climbed to 5.3. Experts suggest that a healthy ratio should be around 2.6."
Noah, I’d like you to elaborate a bit more on why you think your next financial crisis is Crypto or AI versus our debt.
No, we have no idea when our debt will become a financial crisis, or are you saying that our debt is not a crisis? That we are more like Japan in that sense. we’ll have zombie banks and zombie country.
Yep I'll write a lot more about this.
I am happy to see prison population going down (at least pre-Pam Bondi), but I can't help wondering if the reduction in juvenile arrests is because nobody seems to get arrested for much of anything any more. There's no point in even reporting property crimes, street take-overs, shoplifting, even car theft, because the cops are too busy doing something else.
Well, check out the National Crime Victimization Survey. When you go around and ask people "Have you been a victim of a crime recently?", a lot fewer are saying "Yes". That's data I trust.
Now if only the drop in crime could be accompanied by an equivalent drop in TV crime shows. (please note my comment is aurally complemented by the "Ba-Bahm!" of Law & Order, SVU)
In that female education versus fertility chart, does anyone have a version with the countries labeled? The negative correlation is strong, by it looks like there are some positive outliers worth studying -- in particular, a few countries come in around 12 years of education and still have a TFR of 3 or slightly higher. One other country is at 10 years education and >4 TFR. What are those countries? Can we learn some things from them?
Israeli has the highest fertility rate among developed nations. They have a stronger focus on family and community and higher religiosity on par
I believe that the high birth rate in Israel is pretty much confined to the Hasidic community, which does not practice birth control and holds “be fruitful and multiply, " as a divine commandment. I think secular Israelis have a birth rate similar to the rest of the modern world. Consequently, the percentage of Israeli citizens who are Hasidic Jews is rising.
Hasidic birthrates are high, but even excluding them, secular Israelis still have notably higher fertility than e.g. Europeans. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2024/09/95824/
The education vs. fertility conclusion seems logical; women without any access to education don't have a 'career path' outside of being a mother, and as education levels increase they have more opportunities so the number of children they have goes down.
Bummer that all of us are affected by a financial crisis, even if you don't speculate yourself. So welcome to the Bitcoin Roller Coaster ... taking us to an uncharted future!
I am wondering if the development of research topics in economics may to some extent be also due to the increasing number of PhD students? Since demand for theoretical macroeconomists is signficiantly lower in the combined non-academic and academic job market, PhD students are afraid that putting a too high focus on such topics may lead to a career dead end in case the scientific career fails. Instead data science jobs were booming during the last years creating incentives to do as much data work as possible as a preparation for such jobs (but this may end due to Gen AI and new skill requirements for AI engineers). My observations are based on Germany.
From what I am seeing currently, "AI engineers" are just software engineers working in deployment of Gen AI solutions though. In some companies the job ad specifically mentioned these roles as "LLM engineers".
These roles are different with data scientists altogether, so I don't think they clash with each other at all.
So Boomer and Gen X crime is up, while Millennial crime is down. Gen Y is exceptionally law abiding. Presumably it helps that Gen Y wasn't dosed with lead like their grandparents.
To combine your two themes—the decline in fertility rates among African Americans and the decrease in teen sexual activity, as well as the reduction in crime—it's important to recognize that they are related, but not in the way you might think. New technologies, such as internet entertainment and affordable travel, have improved real income and overall quality of life, even though relative inequality has increased.
This shift places a significant value on leisure time. As a result, potential inner-city criminals are more likely to spend their time on Instagram, playing video games, and traveling, rather than going out to commit crimes. The enjoyment and value of these entertainment options create an incentive for them not to engage in criminal activity, as they risk losing their leisure time if they go to jail.
Similarly, this change impacts fertility rates. People are less inclined to have children because they prioritize their leisure time, which is increasingly valuable due to new technologies. Ironically, the best policy to encourage higher birth rates might involve taxing luxury consumption, specifically in entertainment and travel, but this could unintentionally increase crime rates.
The ratio of incomes to home prices has plunged from what it was 50 years ago, brother. I don't give a hoot what else you put in your consumer price index basket; if health insurance and tuition and mortgage payments are doubled, relative to income, versus what they were 50 years ago, then no amount of your stupid tap dancing matters at all Noah. You keep writing like a smug jerk who doesn't remember that other people don't own a home and yet want to.
Years ago, a co-worker suggested that grandparents should do most of child rearing. It is less burdensome on the parents who can more easily pursue careers, easier to have kids at a young age, when the grandparents are more likely capable of doing the work. I have no idea how that idea could become wide spread but it suggests higher fertility but with women still educated.
This is the only way to increase fertility rates. It’s alien to most Americans because moving away from your parents is considered a rite of passage to adulthood. All those who keep mentioning free childcare have no clue that you still have to take care of your kid after work hours.
Many societies in developing world still do this, and as soon as the first glimpse of modernity comes, with independent lifestyle even in these countries, fertility starts to shrink!
On fertility and sexism:
I wonder if the causation of both phenomena is the decline in extended families and the corresponding rise in nuclear families. We don't remember a time when extended families were the norm, but in other parts of the world, the prevalence of extended families correlates (I believe, and with no data to support this claim) with fertility and (again, I guess) with _more_ academic achievement by girls.
Hoping that someone has some data to illuminate this hypothesis.
Meta's AI SPV of $26 Billion doesn't seem that scary compared to their current financials. That's half a year's net income. If you add it to Q1 2025 long term debt ($61B) you get around $87B of LT debt. That's not much higher than 2024's net income. It's important to point out that they are being weird in their structuring but the amounts don't freak me out.