I'm a little tired of hearing people confuse a dropping birthrate with increasing childlessness. They are not the same thing. And hearing that it's education and economic freedom that lead to childlessness.
Historically, in lots of places and at various times, childlessness among women has been higher than it is now.
Because of poverty. Because of a lack of men (wars). Because of a lack of health care. And for (probably) the same number as today, a lack of interest among a fairly small cohort of women.
In some places, and at various times, *lower* education and incomes have been more closely associated with childlessness. This the case right now in some places.
Because kids are expensive. Because women with low incomes and poor education are more likely to have been (historically and now in some places) working in other people's houses and unable to marry. Because poorer women can't access IVF and other fertility care. Because poorer men are more likely to be in military service or incarcerated.
It's hard to find statistics bout childlessness, rather than the birthrate.
Here are a few.
In the US, the percentage of women born in 1918 who never had children was 18%. In 2022 women who were 45-50 (so born around 1972-77) who were childless was 16.5%.
It's not a straight line, but it went *down* not up, overall. Right wingers and fertility worriers will look at the data only since the 70s and tell you it's all the fault of scary independent women.
It's bullshit.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/childlessness/
https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-insights/childlessness
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241535/percentage-of-childless-women-in-the-us-by-age/
@keira_reckons More likely the costs of healthcare and childbirth. @solownh
@AlliFlowers @solownh depends on where you are, but that would track for the US I think.
Where I am, housing is the anecdotal financial killer
@keira_reckons Looks like it comes down to finances, no matter which is more expensive. @solownh
