Multimillionaires don’t need to work, they could stop working and live off the interest on their wealth, yet their fertility rate is lower than people who make under 50k/year, which is less than the interest you make on a million in savings.
That’s assuming they don’t want to keep their big houses, expensive holidays etc? Generally expenditure grows with income.
I think your argument is that people don’t have children for reasons other than wealth. My argument is that wealth and the ability to live a certain life style does affect people’s decision on having children.
That’s where you’re wrong, at a certain point you generate enough from interest that all you’re doing is accumulating more and more wealth, yet these people don’t have more kids.
This shows me that people on high incomes have fewer babies, it doesn’t show whether those not having to work whilst maintaining that high standard of living (i.e. independently wealthy - millions in savings) have higher or lower numbers of children.
I think we’re arguing to the same end, that if it wasn’t a choice between high standard of living / interesting career Vs having children there wouldn’t be an issue. Capitalism, once again, is a victim of it’s own success and desire for short term gains.
We’ve done such a good job advertising a better life that everyone’s decided earning more and having a good career is the most important thing.
This chart does backup your statement that low income families have the highest birthrate.
It does not show whether people have to work, which is the point I was disputing (that rich people who don’t have to work have fewer children)
Looking at the ONS data the percentage of women who’s employment status is ‘unclassified’ is, by far, the largest proportion of women giving birth
Do
You
Believe
That
Multimillionaires
NEED
To
Work
?
Lol, I have no idea, a million isn’t that much if one has a big house, staff, and private jets.
I’m not quite sure what your point is?
Multimillionaires don’t need to work, they could stop working and live off the interest on their wealth, yet their fertility rate is lower than people who make under 50k/year, which is less than the interest you make on a million in savings.
That’s assuming they don’t want to keep their big houses, expensive holidays etc? Generally expenditure grows with income.
I think your argument is that people don’t have children for reasons other than wealth. My argument is that wealth and the ability to live a certain life style does affect people’s decision on having children.
That’s where you’re wrong, at a certain point you generate enough from interest that all you’re doing is accumulating more and more wealth, yet these people don’t have more kids.
And where is this data? What are you basing this on?
Because earning 200k doesn’t mean they have millions in savings, and I’m not quite sure how you’d be able to get that data.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=XD
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1328574/fertility-rate-worldwide-income-level/
Even at lower levels, do you really think that households that make 200k need to work more than households that make 100k?
This shows me that people on high incomes have fewer babies, it doesn’t show whether those not having to work whilst maintaining that high standard of living (i.e. independently wealthy - millions in savings) have higher or lower numbers of children.
I think we’re arguing to the same end, that if it wasn’t a choice between high standard of living / interesting career Vs having children there wouldn’t be an issue. Capitalism, once again, is a victim of it’s own success and desire for short term gains.
We’ve done such a good job advertising a better life that everyone’s decided earning more and having a good career is the most important thing.