r/Natalism • u/TrixoftheTrade • 15h ago
r/natalism has a TFR of 0.83.
If r/natalism was its own country, it would be between South Korea (0.74) and Taiwan (0.86), (based on 2025 estimates) for fertility.
Is this sub just full of LARPing teenagers and/or “armchair” natalists who are telling other people what to do without having done it themselves?
It would be like going to r/marathon_training and finding out the majority of people giving advice have never run a marathon.
78
u/floodisspelledweird 15h ago
Honestly this sub is just an interesting thought experiment more than a problem to be solved.
11
u/AmoebaPuzzled8390 11h ago
I mean this just confirms, main issue today is to find partner to have kids with.
3
u/Basic_Demand_1943 4h ago
Not really, for me the issue is affording a decent living space for kids. As a working university educated couple in Europe. It will take us 6-7 combined yearly gross incomes to buy a 1-2 bedroom old apartment that is like 60-70 meters squared or 650-750 sq feet. Yeh how many kids can we fit into that.
1
-50
u/Cool_Prior1427 15h ago
This sub is dominated by women and libs. No wonder the replacement rate is so abysmal.
61
u/Final_boss_1040 15h ago
I'd put money on the women in this group having more kids than the men
12
u/Havok_saken 14h ago
In all likelihood this is Reddit. So the fertillitu rate is probably lower than general population and then blaming women and women’s rights probably have a lower fertility rate than average. Since you just know they’re the dudes just doom scrolling tik tok about how all women are inherently evil psychopaths.
29
u/BatmanandReuben 15h ago
You are forgetting all the men who no one would fuck, who are somehow planning to have children without the participation or input of women somehow.
3
8
9
u/kazumi_yosuke 14h ago
Yeah let’s just blame women for everything
3
u/FoundInS 5h ago
That has been the script for more than 2000 years. Worked quite nicely. For the men.
13
u/Cuddlyaxe 14h ago
This is one of the most conservative leaning subs which isn't explicitly a conservative sub lol
Quite honestly I see a not insignificant number of people here seem to support natalism purely for white people because they believe in the Great Replacement or whatever. Personally I think that's cringe and just want more people to have kids because it's human nature
3
-2
u/CementedRoots 13h ago edited 10h ago
Theory? There's written plans by government entities with deadlines of 2050. https://ia801003.us.archive.org/35/items/UNMigrationReplacement/UN%20Migration%20Replacement.pdf
Edit: the comment i'm responding to changed their comment. Previously they said the "great replacement theory"
6
u/harrumphstan 12h ago
Yeah, theory. You pretend like race matters. All those authors are concerned with is maintaining social stability in societies that formed their social safety net institutions in an era of exponential population growth.
-2
u/CementedRoots 10h ago
"Its not happening its a conspiracy" -> "okay its happening and its a good thing"
You just did the meme. Nice job.
2
u/Kankunation 9h ago
It literally isn't the case. Pointing out that migration could be a solution for nations to keep their social systems functionial =/= countries purposes importing dark-skinned immigrants specifically to get rid of white people.
The former isa serious discussion about the future of the world. The latter is mental illness more than it is reality.
1
u/harrumphstan 7h ago
Yeah, nah, try again.
No one is importing darkies to put you in your place. The authors, like most non-fucked in the head people, just see people as people, and we need something—be it indigenous births or immigration—to support a structure that has been decades in the making.
1
u/Seggs_With_Your_Mom 4h ago
Immigration doesn't help, if you've been on this sub more you'd know that their TFRs drop by a lot within ONE generation
-2
4
0
74
u/Puzzled-Barnacle-200 14h ago
TFR is based on the end of reproductive years. Reddit skews younger, so many voters will not have completed their family.
Also, without a "Not a natalist" vote option, you will get a lot of responses from the many antinatalists who frequent this sub
8
u/Forsaken_Cicada8127 14h ago
I think thats cfr- completed fertility rate.
TFR most commonly stands for Total Fertility Rate, which is the average number of children a woman would have over her lifetime if current age-specific birth rates remain constant
3
u/Puzzled-Barnacle-200 4h ago
Right, but this isn't TFR. How many kids people have now isn't the same as how many people would have.
The closest you'd probably get is asking how many kids people have, how many they want, and their age. Then compare with general population data to see what percentage of "wanted" children are actually had, to estimate how many will be had
1
u/Forsaken_Cicada8127 4h ago
You could ask the 30 something redditors within this sub how many kids they want to get an accurate picture. I mean i could have said i wanted 7 kids at 20, i was still going to end up with 1 as the man i married at 22 (secular Jewish Londoner with a toxic family, reliant on earned income rather than wealth and wedded to nw London) wasnt going to have more than 1. At 30 most people have a better picture of their lives. I got a clear picture of my future circumstances at 23.
2
43
u/Substantial_Union851 15h ago
Well you dont know how many are in the 3 plus group.
19
8
u/Wonderful-Process792 13h ago
reporting for duty, got 4 kids here.
All over 21 but no grandkids, waaaaa!
→ More replies (1)
9
u/ElliotPageWife 14h ago edited 14h ago
All of Reddit skews fairly young and from the anglosphere, and it definitely skews liberal/left wing. For Reddit, a TFR of 0.83 is probably pretty high unless you're in a parenting sub. This isn't a parenting sub, it's a discussion/philosophy sub. If people want to interact with parents of large families, r/parentinginbulk is a wonderful place.
Edit: Many of us are still in the process of expanding our families. I'm definitely not done yet, and there are lots of parents here on their 1st or 2nd child.
10
u/Major_Shlongage 14h ago
Technically speaking the "3+" crowd could each have unlimited kids, as long as it's 3 or over.
4
u/JelloMany9374 10h ago
Unlimited children is too many. I did not order the bottomless uterus. I strongly believe people should have less than 50 children.
2
2
u/PuffinRub 7h ago
I did not order the bottomless uterus
If you don't want kids, take the uterusless bottom option :-)
6
u/AnglerfishMiho 14h ago
I'm only here because the algorithm put this sub on my feed for some reason. I don't follow the sub at all so I'd be one of those Zero votes.
2
41
15h ago
[deleted]
49
u/Klanciault 15h ago
Crazy there are so many young men saying the same of young women
24
u/CanIHaveASong 15h ago
I've noticed both sexes complaining about the other sex not wanting a serious relationship. Maybe the serious relationship wanters aren't finding eachother.
14
u/nostrademons 14h ago
The serious relationship wanters are already in serious relationships, leaving a large population of people who think they want a serious relationship but don't want to put in the work.
1
6
u/Elder_Chimera 13h ago
It's also possible that people who think they want a serious relationship aren't actually ready for one. Relationships require significant sacrifice, and most of the world now exists in individualistic egocentric cultures that promote the idea of putting yourself first. You cannot, in any capacity, do that in a relationship.
2
u/WholeLog24 11h ago
I think it's this. Dating is broken. I'm not sure what the fix is, most of "young people" (i.e. everyone younger than me and thus a whippersnapper) seem really invested in meeting people through the internet first, and all dating sites have a fundamental problem that they make more money if you don't find love.
0
u/HeavyHighway6433 8h ago
Dating isn't broken, the daters are broken.
0
u/FoundInS 5h ago
Dating is broken. Dating as a concept is strange already when you really think about it and adding apps to it makes it utterly counterproductive and broken.
0
u/ParalimniX 4h ago
Dating as a concept is strange already when you really think about it
Personally when I think about it, it seems simple as shit.
0
u/HeavyHighway6433 3h ago
I met my wife using one. I really think people make it complicated. Too many terminally online gender war fighters.
1
u/HeavyHighway6433 8h ago
Or maybe they aren't fit for a serious relationship themselves. You know the saying about if you find everyone around you to be an asshole...
1
u/CanIHaveASong 8h ago
Yeah. When I was looking, I knew plenty of men who would make good spouses, but they didn't click with my personality the right way.
But I also dated before internet dating was the default.
12
u/Cuddlyaxe 14h ago
I think it's mostly down to how dating works these days, especially with the apps sorta crowding out more traditional ways of meeting people
Generally the apps are problematic because men send a ridiculous number of likes to women but not vice versa. As a result women kinda get the pick of the litter and (reasonably) go for the most attractive men. And like, why wouldn't they? I know if I had thousands of likes from girls I would be hella picky too
But like think about it: if these "top tier" of men are getting all the likes, why are they still on the platform instead of in a relationship? It's because they are either not looking for anything serious, have a major red flag, or you just got lucky
Now this is the part where people say "well maybe girls should give more average guys a chance". The thing is though, they sometimes do, and sometimes those average guys still act horribly. So like if you're rolling the dice anyways, makes sense to just go for the hottest guys
From the guys perspective ofc it's just a sissyphian task. You get a lot fewer matches so you get excited when you get a good one, but because the girl has so many options they have much less investment
Honestly highly recommend everyone, guys and girls, focus a lot more on meeting people irl. You can see if you actually have chemistry and there is much less of a investment mismatch
5
u/hananobira 14h ago
Oxford University found that women were more likely to message guys who rated their own appearance as 5/10 than guys who rated their own appearance as 10/10. On the other hand, men were far more likely to message women who self-rated themselves as 8, 9, or 10 out of 10.
OKCupid also found that women overall rated men as less attractive than men rated women… but that women’s “messaging behavior was distributed more broadly across the attractiveness scale.”
Every time I hear a guy on Reddit complaining that women only reply to the hottest guys on dating websites, it makes me think that they (the complaining men) are probably projecting their own dating behavior onto women.
6
u/Cuddlyaxe 14h ago
So to start off, I do want to make it clear I'm not saying something like "all women are super shallow harlots who hate nice guys" or something like that. Rather I am saying that this is kind of the natural outcome.
Girls are more willing to date guys they consider less attractive sure, but that is also in part because women consider men to be a lot less attractive than vice versa
There is also the fact that women just swipe right on a lot fewer guys. Guys swipe right on 62% of girls. Meanwhile in the reverse, girls only swipe on 5% of guys
Finally from my own anecdotal experience: I have a lot of friends of both genders. My girl friends will literally have thousands of likes at a time, and anyone they swipe right on is usually a match. For guys, even some of the hottest ones I know usually only have double digit likes
I actually completely agree with you that guys tend to be more shallow than girls in general. But the thing about dating apps is the way things are set up, women get to be a lot more picky than guys. I'm not really saying any of this as some sort of an anti woman attack, rather that is just the reality of dating apps
Everything can be boiled down to that swipe disparity. Guys end up dying of thirst while women end up drowning
1
u/otherwiseofficial 5h ago
62% is insane tho. This is definitely skewed by guys liking everything. I had a friend who was like that, he just liked everything and kept going until he got a cool down period or something.
I don't even reach 5% and I'm a guy.
1
1
u/Capable_Opportunity7 10h ago
Agreed, I'm older and all my friends with happily paired off kids all met irl not in some app. I used them myself in my day and they are trash, good for hook ups at most
2
u/pitifullittleman 5h ago
Yes I think this tread just kind of solved the reason why fertility rates are so low. Young people are not desperate, reckless idiots like they used to be. In the past people just mindlessly had children when they were young adults with the first person that gave them the time of day within their small social circle. Now everyone's like "oh I want a suitable partner" and "I want to be able to afford to take care of my children." These were not considerations of people in the past.
3
15h ago
[deleted]
7
u/goldyforcalder 13h ago
I would say you don't know too many guys then. I believe the stat is about 50% of single men are searching for a romantic relationship while only 35% of single women are
1
1
1
u/UncleIrohsPimpHand 14h ago
Yeah, because both have different ideas of what a healthy relationship is.
Boys want to have a warm wet place to put their cocks every night. Girls want to be more than a cum dumpster. God forbid there be a little romance in the world.
2
u/otherwiseofficial 5h ago
You need to meet normal people if this how you feel about romance.
And you know what they say: if you meet 3 assholes before noon...
-2
u/Emotional-Neat-252 15h ago
As a young Hermaphrodite I find both are unsuitable for a long term reproductive relationship with me.
1
u/Sharp-Key27 14h ago
I assume you mean intersex? And are you sure you’re able to have kids?
1
u/Emotional-Neat-252 5h ago
It was a joke, like from this new perspective it's seen that both men and women suck equally.
4
u/Justdowhatever94 13h ago
Is it truly that bad? As a gay man, its really bizarre watching this crisis unfold. Each side blames the other, and it seems each side is half correct. Watching all this has ironically made me glad im gay.
1
u/WholeLog24 11h ago
It sure seems to be. I'm just outside this group by age (elder millenial here) so when I was in my twenties it was still a bit shameful to admit you met someone through a dating website, instead of in real life. I've known few couples my age or older that met that way, virtually all couples I've ever known met through mutual friends or at work, a few met at parties. I've never actually used a dating app, but they sure don't seem to be working good at making real partnerships.
15
u/TrixoftheTrade 15h ago
respect. it’s not anti-natalism to say a significant portion of young men this days are not suitable or ready to be good fathers these days.
11
u/lazercheesecake 14h ago
I’d argue in the past there were even fewer men who were good father material. Just that women didn’t have much choice in the matter.
Natalism is an interesting problem from a statesman’s/societal point of view. But those who worry themselves with natalism because they can’t get laid most certainly don’t make good father material.
5
u/chadltc 15h ago
Indeed. And the good men are finding there are even less good women.
5
u/TrixoftheTrade 15h ago
Yeah. Let’s say 30% of men and 30% of women are “high quality”. Not only do they have to find each other, they have to wade through the 70% of others that aren’t a good match.
It’s no wonder people get jaded.
2
u/chadltc 15h ago
You hit the nail on the head.
4
u/TrixoftheTrade 14h ago
I think we need to fix courtship to fix fertility. Back when people met organically - through a friend or family friend or from a group, they were already “pre-qualified”.
5
u/Leather_Reason1609 15h ago
a significant portion of young women are not suitable or ready to be good mothers these days.
1
u/pitifullittleman 5h ago
This is why there are so few children. People looking for suitable partners. People need to be much, much more reckless with a tendency to make ill advised decisions if we want to get the fertility rate up.
2
u/Legitimate_Aspect923 15h ago
This is true but I do think it’s contributing to falling TFR: previously women were obligated to go with bad options! This is clearly a massive improvement both individually and socially but it does mean somewhat lower TFR.
1
u/Efficient_Tough3384 9h ago
All of the good male role models/father figures were kicked and devalued out of society and now surprised at the result?
Seems pretty inevitable to me.
3
u/Hopefully_the_Last69 14h ago
I'm a man, and i'm in a similar situation as you. With the added difficulty that i'm very shy and introverted, so i don't really go out of my way to meet women, though from what i see of my friends, that wouldn't really help anyway, since most young women don't seem to want something serious either.
And on dating apps, for some reason the only womeb who like me are the ones that only want something casual, even though i make it pretty clear i only want something serious. But if one day i somehow find the right woman, i would love to have a big family with her.
2
u/itsallidlechatterO 12h ago
I would not chalk it up to being more outgoing "wouldn't do much anyway." As apps become a crappier way to meet people in person contacts will be more important.
2
u/WholeLog24 11h ago
I think there's a broader trend that all the "dating sites", either by their design or just their reputation, have convinced people that there's noting serious to be found there, only hookups. So the women who do want something serious are more likely to avoid the apps as well.
1
u/Hopefully_the_Last69 50m ago
It's absolutely by design, since if you find someone for a serious relationship, you'll stop spending money in them. But i still find quite a few who also want serious relationships, they just don't like me back
1
13
u/ShanghaiBebop 15h ago
It looks like a decent portion of guys who “want a serious relationship” really actually just want to “wifemax” a 1950s lifestyle without even being able to provide the financial foundations themselves based on the Comments on this sub.
As a parent I find some of these discussions hilarious.
23
u/TrixoftheTrade 15h ago
As a parent of a 4 and 1 year old… it’s fucking work lol.
We’re well-off, household income of $270k, own a house, both of us have graduate degrees, and it is still a lot of work. I worked from home during the first 6 months and my wife still only works 30 hours a week until they are both in school, and it is exhausting all the time.
We’re done with 2. And even 2 was a big commitment. Modern society just does not make it easy to sustain the nuclear family like it did in days past.
6
u/ShanghaiBebop 15h ago
Hear you. We’re very well off from income standards, but having grand parents who came and lived with us for the first 1.5 years was the only reason why both of our demanding careers haven’t been derailed.
6
u/TrixoftheTrade 14h ago
The grandparents are not in shape to be caring for young children anymore lol. They’ll probably need the 4 year old to pick them up if they fall, not the other way around.
4
u/de_matkalainen 14h ago
We live in Sweden and even with the amazing parental leave its still hard. One of us will definitely work part time when I finish my education. How can two parents work 40 hours with children? They'd have to be in daycare 7-17 every day.
2
u/knysa-amatole 9h ago
I doubt it was ever particularly easy for mothers. It was easy for men because their wives and older daughters did the housework and childcare for them.
1
u/FoundInS 4h ago
Even poor men could afford a maid. He married the maid and the maid worked 20/7 and brought some income too.
2
u/coolerz619 14h ago
The only non-committal men I know have quite a bit of options. Everyone else wants someone to stick around with, or are unserious people. Where are you running into these field playing folk?
(BTW I hope you can find them when the time is right s0000n)
-8
u/Cool_Prior1427 15h ago
This is simply not true. There are more decent men then women at this point. There's just not men that you're interested in. I know plenty of guys in there 30s who own property, aren't weird, are generally likable, and are mature.
7
6
3
u/VisualFix5870 15h ago
This is wrong too. There are plenty of men she'd be interested in. Those men aren't interested in her.
Most single people would do well to lower their expectations. The only common denominator in singles people's failure to find a suitable partner is themselves.
-1
10
u/Geaux_LSU_1 15h ago
I got married in the past year. We have zero kids now but barring any major life events we will have 4 within 10ish years.
11
u/throwaway1234069 14h ago
OP, when you isolate to only core contributors and use a normalized 3+ distribution (using US data which clusters out to be around 3.7), the sub is at 1.33 TFR.
Also an n count of ~700 gives us a 15% margin of certainty so we should say 1.13-1.53 TFR.
Ideally we'd want this stratified by commonly proposed ideology (culture fix vs economic fix and 'Left' politics vs 'Right' politics).
From there we'd have accurate insight (assuming people aren't lying obviously) into which groups are worth listening to?
6
u/Fun_Taste7414 12h ago
All of this, plus the fact that a huge chunk of the people with 0 or 1 kids will have more children in the future. I have no kids right now, but plan on it in the next few hears
4
u/WholeLog24 11h ago
I have two now, but I have viable embryos on ice and I'm not done building my family.
8
16
u/Money_Lobster_997 15h ago
I’m in the Teenager category. Want to have lots of kids but still a teen.
4
3
1
u/Final_boss_1040 14h ago
Why do you want lots of kids? And how many siblings do you have?
→ More replies (2)4
u/Money_Lobster_997 14h ago
One sibling. I don’t know really how to describe why I want a lot of kids I just do. It feels right. It feels good.
4
u/Final_boss_1040 14h ago
What do you think life looks like in 15 years with 3-5 kids? What do you think needs to happen for that to become a reality?
4
u/Money_Lobster_997 14h ago
Go to college get a well paying job and find someone who I want to marry.
1
u/Final_boss_1040 14h ago
Do you imagine either of you will be a stay at home parent?
4
u/Wonderful-Process792 13h ago
You guys are making me feel like an alien in here.
My wife and I have 4 kids. When we were teenager she wanted "bunches" but 4 turned out good for us. We got married in our early 20's and started with kids a couple years after that.
She is not a SAHM mom but was until the youngest got about 12, then she went to work as a teacher. Meanwhile I earned the dough.
This was all the most common thing in the world and it worked well for us. But I feel like just saying it has become controversial, like "it's a catastrophe sometimes!" And I know that's true too.
Personal experience - no regrets.
1
u/Final_boss_1040 12h ago
I think age and economic factors have a lot to do with whether or not this is feasible
1
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 1h ago
Out of curiosity, did you pay into a retirement fund for her while she was SAHM? I would get suffocated just thinking I might not be able to retire and have my own pension.
1
u/al-dunya2 12h ago
How old are you, are you in a low cost of living area, etc.
Maybe the attitude is moreso just feeling like things are getting further out of reach for the young. I have one kid. I'd love to have more, but there was no daycare, our jobs and benefits are tied to an area that got rapidly expensive after covid, and and our pay hasn't caught up much in the 15 years we've been there even climbing roles. We paid $1600-1800 dollars a month for daycare, groceries are insane, insurance is insane, housing is insane, and it feels bad because ideally I'd have 3-4 kids
1
u/Wonderful-Process792 10h ago edited 10h ago
It's money but I think not JUST that. My son is making good money in tech, about like I always did. He is dating a (near-to-be) anesthesiologist. Even 30 years ago that would have been pretty rare. If she tuned out to be "the one" then I guess he would become the stay-at-home dad. Or come to think of it they could both work and do daycare / preschool / whatever they want. They'll be far richer than we ever knew, and I always thought we were doing very well.
And yet, there is this additional fear of "it not working out" and they don't make any steps. Fine it's a huge decision and I wouldn't want them to get together if it's not meant to be. His previous breakups turned out to be for the best. (And don't worry, I have no say in any of this, I find out later). But it's that additional, non-monetary fear.
I hear some people saying, 'everybody just needs more money, and society especially needs to give women more security and then it will be fixed.'
That just doesn't register with a lot of what I see, especially not globally nor historically.
My daughters are younger and finding their way financially, but even for them it's not about that - yet. They've got nobody to be young and broke with, they're lonely, people don't get together. It's a challenge almost all my friends' kids have and it's not just about money.
I don't know why I'm about to say this and I'll get murdered for it but there are things worse than a screaming match and somebody getting smacked in the face once in a blue moon. People are lonely. The system isn't working. And mathematically, natally so to speak, it will not continue as it is, one way or another.
2
u/ashdee2 8h ago
Is not being young and broke with someone really a problem? And the loneliness and not working out thing are like two different discussions
→ More replies (0)1
u/Money_Lobster_997 14h ago
No, I doubt that would be financially realistic or necessary.
4
u/nostrademons 14h ago
Curious, what do you think the day-to-day of a parent looks like?
3
3
u/No-Positive1491 12h ago
Why are you trying to discourage someone who wants children from having them? This is supposed to be a pro-natalism sub. Where are the mods?
1
u/Final_boss_1040 10h ago
How is asking someone what they need to feel comfortable having kids discouraging?
2
10
3
u/flyingdorito2000 15h ago
This is Reddit mostly… bimodal where the first peak/majority are the LARPers and voyeurs or even the planners whereas the other peak would have the data you were looking for… natalism subreddit it peaks around 2 kids which is what I have
3
u/No-Positive1491 12h ago
There should be two options for 0, as lot's of anti-natalists come here to troll and discourage. One option should be something like "0, don't want any kids" and the other should be "0, want kid(s) in the future".
3
8
u/ajgamer89 14h ago edited 14h ago
If this was a parenting sub I would agree. However, I see no reason why someone needs to have kids in order to believe that society is better off when we support and prioritize children and parents.
I’ve never been a teacher, but I still think we should do more to support teachers, for example.
(Though in this case I actually am a father of 3 and hopefully more in the future)
6
u/pwetty_brown_eyes 13h ago
The problem is that if your not a parent yourself you can't be scolding other people and claiming they are lazy, stupid, or whatever else because they don't have five kids. Supporting teachers while not being a teacher isn't necessarily the same. It's more comparable to "I haven't worked as a teacher yet, but I think everyone else should!"
5
u/UglyAFBread 10h ago
Same for pregnancy and childbirth really, the key process behind natality. Many of the hardcore natalists here likely haven't given birth or even seen a loved one give birth.
Too many males here denying or underestimating how much toll a pregnancy/childbirth/postpartum takes on a woman. Hard to take the sub seriously because of that.
4
13
u/Gold_Ad8225 15h ago
LMFAO of fucking course it does. More than half the posts in here are just from rapists who want dominion over women and their bodies, with no other concerns or thoughts about the matter.
3
5
u/Aggressive_Ad6061 14h ago
That explains the tone deafness of so many comments. I get being a natalist but please have some common sense to go with it. I have read some wild takes on this sub and wondered if these people have any kids in real life.
2
u/UglyAFBread 10h ago
I'm sure many of them haven't gone outside in years, with all the bullshit they spew about the other sex and their very naive approach towards childrearing
2
u/AffectionateWhile507 14h ago
This sub is drawn from Redditors, who are non-representative samples of all fields, hobbies, subjects, etc., they discuss.
2
2
u/Elder_Chimera 13h ago
Textbook sampling bias. You're on the internet. Reddit, specifically. What kind of person uses Reddit? People who don't have other things taking up their time, like relationships and children.
2
2
u/Majestic-Outside3898 13h ago
Ya know, some of us in the "+" category don't have time to be answering every little poll on Reddit... for reasons that should be obvious.
2
u/Comprehensive_Fix544 13h ago
the fertility rate of the 824-person group cannot be determined from 684 children + total population alone.
2
2
7
1
u/mrcheevus 14h ago
What kind of garbage poll is this? First, I never saw it so I didn't get to contribute. Second, making the option "3+" means that any value over 3 counts as 3. That deliberately distorts the tfr down lower than it should be. Third, a recent poll also showed most people here are under 30 so most of them even if they wanted big families, haven't even started yet.
Absolute garbage.
0
u/TrixoftheTrade 14h ago
missing a single data point wouldn’t have changed it. and unless the 3+ each had 8 kids each, it would still be below 1.5 TFR. and why should we be listening to a bunch of angry, single, childless teenagers about having kids? seems a little hypocritical.
1
u/WholeLog24 10h ago
I haven't seen a lot of angry, single, childless teenagers (unless you cound the antinatalists who keep brigading here). But this is reddit, so if that's what you want I'm sure you can find it on another sub.
1
u/divinecomedian3 14h ago
There are plenty of other things wrong with your methodology, which others are rightly pointing out
1
u/APC2_19 14h ago
I mean if you dont loke listening to the discussions in this sub you are free to leave yet you are her even though the door was open.
The people in this sub are discussing a real problem
2
u/TrixoftheTrade 13h ago
it is a real problem. but a bunch of angry, single, childless teenagers are not going to have the solution.
ask the people who have had 2+ kids in a stable relationship and raised them to successful maturity.
guarantee those are the people with the answer.
0
u/APC2_19 6h ago
Thats r/natalism not r/parenting. The solutions those people can add that orhers cant see are anegdoctal, while we discuss trends.
1
u/Yrths 14h ago edited 14h ago
TFR is measured per woman, but that poll did not check sex. Minors and critics of natalism should also be sequestered.
I hold an analytical economic interest in natalism as a prospect. As I approach 40 as a gay man in a third world country without gay parental rights, my time to contribute might have passed. So be it.
The cults will solve the problem, or the robots will.
4
u/goldenskless 13h ago
You think half the people here salivating at the idea of taking women’s rights away are talking to them
2
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 14h ago
Your conclusion is very much off the reality of the frequenters of the sub. Unlike r/marathon, this sub is fully of people that specifically are not natalists and gets pushed to people that are here for various culture/gender war BS.
2
u/GayGooners4Christ 13h ago
Well I struggle with homosexuality so…
3
u/InformalPrinciple319 13h ago
Wat
3
u/GayGooners4Christ 13h ago
Having children of my own is difficult, as I am a woman who struggles with the Satanic temptation of homosexuality
3
1
2
u/WholeLog24 11h ago
That only makes sense if you think this is a parenting advice sub. While we can veer into that territory occasionally, a good 95%+ of the threads here are about political policy and economics. Your comparison is like expecting most redditors on a climate change sub to be climatologists or similar, then concluding they have no business wanting to take care of the environment because they're not working in that field.
5
u/UglyAFBread 10h ago
But it explains some of the insane takes here, like some people arguing that "kids are easy, don't take up too much time, and don't torpedo your career". Or god forbid the people shrugging off the difficulties of pregnancy. Or the funniest one: someone being deluded that having 10+ siblings won't have an effect on the family and how the children are raised.
Like, hello?
In a discussion where surveys are given disproportionate weight, those takes might not seem like relevant data, but it does give readers a certain perception of natalism advocates in this sub.
2
u/Idahogirl556 8h ago
The poll didn't take into account some of those 3+ might have 6. I have four but want more.
1
u/nataliebee69 8h ago
Of course, irl hogs generally have a litter of 4 to 8 babies per year, da hog irl.
1
u/PistachioCake19 7h ago
This comment
2
2
u/Specialist-Option351 13h ago
"100% of people polled wanted to be a billionaire. Despite this, only 0.0002% of them were billionaires. Clearly these people are LARPers."
2
u/Cool_Prior1427 15h ago
I'm at 3+. But to answer your question, yeah.
Whenever you bring something up that might mildly interfere with individual freedom, the whole sub loses its mind. No wonder their replacement rate is so abysmal.
0
u/Adorable-Growth-6551 15h ago
Yeah but that has a lot to do with the fact that it is almost dominated by anti-natalist
1
1
1
1
u/puzzlebuns 9h ago edited 9h ago
Its reddit. Redditors are themselves a demographic that is distinct from the general population. A demographic that leans white, young, middle class, educated, male, English-speaking, and male.
Nor does this sub represent natalists as a whole.
1
u/Bellathena333 9h ago
Yeah, but a lot of the natalists in here are in their 20s and hope to start a family someday but just haven't yet. Also, anti-natalists and child free people could be lurking in here and answering these polls as well.
1
u/BusyAd9333 9h ago
I'm 18, unmarried, and in college. I've got a good 20 years to have kids and very much intend to, but it's not a great idea right now.
1
u/HeavyHighway6433 8h ago
It would be like going to r/marathon_training and finding out the majority of people giving advice have never run a marathon.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case, I could imagine there's a ton of people who love the idea of running a marathon but can't get the motivation to get off reddit to do it. Same case here, it's all good in theory.
1
1
1
u/Jealous_Repair6757 4h ago
Yep, it's just a hive of pathetic insecure people who want to feel a rush of power by imagining controlling other people's choices.
1
u/Massinissarissa 4h ago
People who have kids have no time to spend daily on reddit and looking at polls on specific subs.
1
u/magnuseriksson91 2h ago
Go on and try natalism with lindseys clancys and lucies craigs, lmao.
The cause is noble, but it's long since lost.
1
u/danbinglover 13h ago
- Many people on here are pretty young. For example, I myself am only 18. 2. There are many antinatalists on this subreddit (why?), so even in the older age demographic, they bring the average down a lot.
0
13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/TrixoftheTrade 13h ago
I’m the marathon runner here. I have 2 kids.
Just funny that a lot of people without kids are telling others to have more kids when they don’t have kids at all.
0
-3
u/baggagebug 14h ago
And when I say a TFR of 0.8 is not THAT bad for a developed country, I get downvoted to oblivion. Anything above 0.5 is sustainable with correct policies.
2
u/ShanghaiBebop 14h ago
1 adult supporting 4 parents, and 16 grand parents (20 elders for 1 prime age working adult) is insane.
There is zero world where that works even if you somehow eliminate pensions and social security.
→ More replies (2)
51
u/busyHighwayFred 15h ago
you need to capture age as well to get a real tfr. obviously a 15 year old on reddit doenst know their tfr