The way we expect women to fill in the gaps where markets haven't worked is obviously my jam, but my few ganders at Tim Carney his social conservativism winds up making me mad. I may just not have the strength, lol.
One thing about most fertility boosting policies, whether corporate or otherwise, is that they are just too small to offset the cost of having a child. Like a few days off and a couple grand is really nice and would make having kids easier, but it's not enough to rebalance the decision.
Alienated America didn't make me mad. Family Unfriendly has me fuming in parts. I don't really follow him outside of his books anymore. I liked his column on corporatism back in the day but it appears his purview has shifted.
IIRC, the cash thing is basically what Tim finds too. In some cases cash does seem to boost fertility, but then later researchers find the cash just changed the average timing of births rather than increasing the total.
I think small/reasonable amounts of cash could boost fertility among women who already really wanted to be parents and for whom a little bit of cash is a big deal because their income is so low.
But not for anyone else, on average. I think it's the total cost, yes. In this I'm including the opportunity cost, which is much lower for low-income women.
The other reason I don't believe small/reasonable amounts of cash will boost fertility among average women is that a lot of the cost is about avoiding downward mobility, which no amount of cash can solve because it's caused by inequality and is ultimately a question of hierarchy rather than absolute material deprivation. I could be wrong.
Yeah, part of the reason I suspect that pronatalist policies will never take off is that the poorest women would need the least incentive due to opportunity cost.
I remember the welfare reform debates back in the day, and it was pretty blatantly sold as anti-natalist!
The way we expect women to fill in the gaps where markets haven't worked is obviously my jam, but my few ganders at Tim Carney his social conservativism winds up making me mad. I may just not have the strength, lol.
One thing about most fertility boosting policies, whether corporate or otherwise, is that they are just too small to offset the cost of having a child. Like a few days off and a couple grand is really nice and would make having kids easier, but it's not enough to rebalance the decision.
Alienated America didn't make me mad. Family Unfriendly has me fuming in parts. I don't really follow him outside of his books anymore. I liked his column on corporatism back in the day but it appears his purview has shifted.
IIRC, the cash thing is basically what Tim finds too. In some cases cash does seem to boost fertility, but then later researchers find the cash just changed the average timing of births rather than increasing the total.
I think small/reasonable amounts of cash could boost fertility among women who already really wanted to be parents and for whom a little bit of cash is a big deal because their income is so low.
But not for anyone else, on average. I think it's the total cost, yes. In this I'm including the opportunity cost, which is much lower for low-income women.
The other reason I don't believe small/reasonable amounts of cash will boost fertility among average women is that a lot of the cost is about avoiding downward mobility, which no amount of cash can solve because it's caused by inequality and is ultimately a question of hierarchy rather than absolute material deprivation. I could be wrong.
https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/the-problem-isnt-poverty-its-precarity
https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/derek-thompson-is-missing-a-key-driver
Yeah, part of the reason I suspect that pronatalist policies will never take off is that the poorest women would need the least incentive due to opportunity cost.
I remember the welfare reform debates back in the day, and it was pretty blatantly sold as anti-natalist!
Really loved this one!
TY! I'm curious what you liked about it, if you have a second.