Icelandic fertility rate

Originally posted by Teinosuke
So what makes Iceland unique?

Poor planning - hence the financial problems.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
1) Because the inevitable consequence of a sub-replacement fertility rate is a large retired and small working age population, and it's difficult to support a society with this kind of age structure.

Then import some people rather than adding to the worlds problems.

2) Because we in the developed world demonstrably have the wealth and resources to support the populations we have at a reasonable level of comfort and prosperity. Demonstrably, because we do so already. I'm not advocating massive population growth, you understand.
No, you demonstrably do not have what it takes to support your populations at their current levels. You only maintain them at the expense of poorer countries and the environment and sooner or later, both will catch up with you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You know that most people in poor countries live in urban areas, right? Where are they supposed to "forage"? Seems you have a strange view of what developing countries are like; most of them have living standards comparable to the interbellum or the 50s-60s in developed countries.

But the culture takes a few generations to change. (And by the way, in Zambia, the poor are about 50% rural.)

The real reasons are not quite so simple:
1. Having more children does not generally add as high a percentage of cost as it does in wealthier countries.
2. The society has greater family support systems making having children easier.
3. Cultural pressure to have children is stronger.
4. A lower percentage of women work.
5. Birth control and education on birth control methods are not as readily available. This is a big one - providing birth control has lowered birth rates across the globe.
6. A lack of planning ahead. When you are poor you tend to plan for today but not tomorrow. This really struck me as a major cultural difference when I moved to South Africa. People here plan much further ahead - because they can.

I don't get why having more children in rich countries will reduce their standard of living. Perhaps that is true in the U.S., where you won't be able to send all of them to college, but in most rich countries this won't be an issue.
If I had another child my costs would go up dramatically - or I would have to spend less on each of them. In poorer countries the difference is far less noticeable - partly because you don't spend on luxuries for children anyway.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What makes you think the redistributive programmes have not succeeded? There are several countries in the world with almost zero poverty.

They haven't succeeded comprehensively. Surely almost all developed countries have some kind of underclass. I'm not denying that redistributive programmes have been widely effective.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Then import some people rather than adding to the worlds problems.

We have had plentiful immigration for decades. Increasing the immigrant population further is, I fear, going to be a tough sell to European electorates.

No, you demonstrably do not have what it takes to support your populations at their current levels. You only maintain them at the expense of poorer countries and the environment and sooner or later, both will catch up with you.

OK - I retract my initial glib statement that we do support our populations; but I think we could. The Netherlands is one of the world's most densely populated countries and one of the most prosperous, and its intensive farming techniques (which we could readily adopt elsewhere in the West) allow it not only to grow enough to feed itself, but also to become the world's third largest agricultural exporter.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So your argument, albeit overly simplistic, does partially explain why people have very large families in very poor countries, but it does not explain why people choose to have small families.

I have chosen to have a small family for financial reasons. Nothing to do with inheritance but because of what it costs to raise a child in a developed country.

I think women on the other hand may have other reasons including the fact that they delay having children in preference for a career, and if they do work, they are likely to have less children.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have chosen to have a small family for financial reasons. Nothing to do with inheritance but because of what it costs to raise a child in a developed country.

I think women on the other hand may have other reasons including the fact that they delay having children in preference for a career, and if they do work, they are likely to have less children.

Wait, don't you live in South Africa? Does that count as a developed country these days? Regardless, I could have 20 children and easily afford it, even if I was on welfare (and they'd all get health care and access to university education).

I think women on the other hand may have other reasons including the fact that they delay having children in preference for a career, and if they do work, they are likely to have less children.

Yes. The reasons are (mostly) social, not (purely) financial. Women want a career, they want to do other things than just raising children. They have about 2 children simply because they tend to like that amount.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Wait, don't you live in South Africa? Does that count as a developed country these days? Regardless, I could have 20 children and easily afford it, even if I was on welfare (and they'd all get health care and access to university education).

Well its several worlds up from Zambia. I really cant speak for your country, never having lived there. I do know that here, a large proportion of my salary goes on my son and our lifestyle would take a significant blow if I had more children.
There are poor people with more children, but they must live a cheaper lifestyle as a result.

Yes. The reasons are (mostly) social, not (purely) financial. Women want a career, they want to do other things than just raising children. They have about 2 children simply because they tend to like that amount.
In my family tree, I come from a family of 4 (which was considered 'large' by our relatives), my parents were 2 and 3, but a few generations back the families had an average of 8 children. But they also often had several wives as one or two wives would die in child birth and several of the children would die as infants.

I think that in countries where there are high infant death rates, they have large families. When the death rate goes down it can take a generation to change the culture but then family sizes drop significantly.