@mcgillarts.bsky.social @mcgillumedia.bsky.social @mcgillnewsmag.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social

I found this out because there were these weird off-hand comments in the population projections from the era. I was shocked that they thought fertility rates would remain at or near Depression levels in the 1940s and 1950s.
But of course they did! We always think the future will be like the present.

#population #demography

Read the whole thing!
@mcgillumedia.bsky.social @mcgillarts.bsky.social

9/9

Our ongoing conversation partners about these ideas and the need for demographers to challenge the mistakes of pronatalism include
@amandajean.bsky.social @srhayford.bsky.social @lauralindberg.bsky.social @alisongemmill.bsky.social @drjenndowd.bsky.social
8/

But the kind of crisis that pronatalists say requires state policy interventions in childbearing decisions isn't supported by evidence or good social science.
7/

There can be a good case for adjustments to economic and labor policies, family support, education investments, and immigration to adapt to changes in the age structure of the population, and to help families reach their desired number of children.
6/

Nor is there any current reason to expect medium-term decline in the US population in particular, or the crises pronatalists imagine about the labor force. Some of their ideas risk making labor force problems *worse* by reversing gains in women's labor force participation.
5/

"Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That’s because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways."
4/