among

A while ago Martin Kolk, a demographer from the University of Stockholm, asked an interesting question: does the income level influence the number of children who have men and women throughout their lives? And if so, to what extent? To answer these issues he dedicated himself to combing the fertility and income databases of his country, Sweden, of the last decades. The result He published it In 2022 in Population Studieswhere it reveals a change in tendency in Swedish society that, like Kolk himself stands outcould move to other nations. Your conclusion It is as simple as it is interesting: Sweden seems to have ended The paradox that often the richest people are the least children. Issue of children and money. Having children demand money. Last year Save the Children He made accounts And he concluded that, on average, in Spain he leaves 758 euros per month, if they have as soon as all the factors involved in parenting, from food to education, health or the need for a broader housing. Despite that reality (paternity costs) there are many low -per capita income in which the fertility rate is Very superior to that of other richer nations. For example, it occurs with Niger and the United Kingdom. The other question. Another phenomenon that demographers have observed in the past, such as remember The Institute for Family Studies (IFS), is that in the rich countries women with the highest level of education and labor perspectives have fewer children. “While the theoretical arguments that (…) affirm that the richest parents should be able to have more children, industrial societies of the twentieth century have shown the reverse pattern,” Kolk points out. The United States offers A good example: The highest birth rate is achieved by the poorest families. The big question is … Is that trend still true? Diving between data. To answer that question and others as to what extent the income affects birth or, in reverse, how motherhood in income influences, Martin Kolk opted for a peculiar strategy: took into account the accumulated income by its compatriots throughout its life, analyzing in detail the 40 -year Swedish data and income for each birth cohort. Its analysis covers a wide period that extends to the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, valuing the “accumulated income” in Swedish crowns. The analysis, of course, has its biases. Kolk focused only on the Swedish population, leaving even the people who had emigrated. However, his work is thorough: he analyzes people between the ages of 20 and 60, valued the income that they “accumulate” when they reach 50 years and took into account factors such as available income or aid to fatherhood. Men: richer, more children. In the case of men, he appreciated a fairly clear relationship between accumulated income and fatherhood that has not left great surprises over the years. “The richest men are the ones who have the most children and that pattern has accentuated over time. At higher income, more children,” Comment The Stockholm expert, which even warns: “It is increasingly frequent that men with very low income do not have children.” In his study, Kolk points out that it is not so much that the richest men accumulate a lot of offspring as it is more frequent that they have two, three or four offspring compared to other men with a more adjusted income level. And what about women? It is there where research gets interesting. Among the Kolk women did appreciate a trend change. And of course. While between those born in the 1940s and 1950s, lower income (accumulated income available) was accompanied by more children, which did so over the subsequent years (between 1960 and 1970) showed the opposite photo: the highest income indicated greater offspring. “The trend is reversed: the pattern is more similar to that of men”, Confirm. The full photography is somewhat more complicated. Women with the highest income, for example, are not necessarily those who have the greatest number of children and the trend is not exactly the same if we talk about “accumulated income” or profits. But from the University of Stockholm they appreciate in any case a “significant change” in the fertility pattern of women. And a change that breaks with what was the general tonic for a long time. “The results contrast with those of many other high -income countries in the twentieth and twenty -first centuries, in which researchers have shown that it was more common to have many children among men and women with lower income.” Looking for the causes. Detected the change in trend, the next question is obvious: why? What has caused it? Kolk points to social changes (especially those related to the labor market) and family policies of Sweden. Unlike what could happen decades ago, when many of the women who had children were housewives dedicated to home care, now “women do not have to choose between having children and follow a career.” “What is observed is a transformation of a society where women, to some extent, had to choose between a professional career or have children to a society in which these decisions no longer have to make.” Among the women of the 1940s and 195th, those of lower income were often housewives. It is demography … and above all it is economy. The study shows another valuable reading, especially for countries that have seen how their fertility descended over the years. Research shows that in general people with very low income levels do not usually have children, something extensible to men and women. Also clarify that this pattern “It has accentuated over time”which confirms to what extent the economic factors influence motherhood. “Today, an increasing number of women and men with low income in Sweden decide not to have children,” concludes The expert as an example. “The paradox is left behind”. For IFS Kolk’s research reveals that “at least in Sweden the paradox that the richest people have less children seems to be left behind,” … Read more