Eek!

Ryan Avent, having had his employer accused of advocating building highways to increase fertility, defends against the charge by turning around and laying it on me. No, no, no, I never said no such thing nohow. America's car culture may encourage fertility--but that's the culture, not the highways. And the per-capita income which allows us to spend more money on big cars and gas to fill them. Canada has lots of highways.

Even if I did think that highways, or lower gas taxes, encourage fertility, I would expect the added-fertility-per-dollar-spent-on-roads to be too trivial to make it worthwhile government policy. Even if I didn't think it would be bad government policy for other reasons, like global warming and giving senators a slush fund to play with.

When I said that government policies to encourage fertility don't work, I meant "policies within the reasonable solution set of a western democracy". Obviously, there are some policies that will encourage fertility; a ban on birth control and abortion, for example, would probably be fairly effective. But these are not things that have a reasonable chance of passing the legislature, for which we may humbly thank god every day; ditto, the number of new roads that might conceivably in some universe produce an uptick in the birth rate.

Comments

Check out the massive subsidies they pay women who have children in Estonia--seems to be working. Not sure if you'd consider it a solution available to western democracies.

Posted by Cliff Mason | September 18, 2007 8:30 PM

I shouldn't have attributed that argument to you. I don't think it's correct to separate the culture from the highways, though. The former doesn't exist without the latter, and while we can argue about which is inducing which, I think the policy choices made in the 50s and 60s--to invest massively in highways, guarantee suburban mortgages and redline urban community investment, and intentionally dismantle urban streetcar networks, for instance--set the feedback loop in motion. I'd also suggest that Canada has a car culture similar to our own (and, oddly enough, its fertility rates over the past fifty years track more closely with ours than with Europe's).

Posted by ryan | September 18, 2007 9:12 PM

How about government policies targeted at reducing obesity? Having a healthier, more attractive population would presumably encourage fertility.

Posted by Dillon | September 18, 2007 9:30 PM

"Commencing test of Megan McArdle's anti-troll comment policing system. Nigel Witherspoon posted at 9:12 PM. The time is now 9:51 PM."

(Whistles "Edelweiss," files nails)

Update MM: Sorry, I took a Nyquil and was out like a light by the time that was posted. Now removed.

Posted by Clem | September 18, 2007 9:51 PM

"a ban on birth control and abortion, for example, would probably be fairly effective"
Well it was when they did that in Romania in 1966. The next year the birthrate doubled. (Yey Freakonomics and random facts).

Posted by Jacob | September 18, 2007 11:19 PM

When I said that government policies to encourage fertility don't work, I meant "policies within the reasonable solution set of a western democracy".

Obviously, Ms. McA., you're not being paid by the word, but qualifiers can be important.

Posted by M. Bouffant | September 19, 2007 12:03 AM

I personally _have_ argued that improved highways with 120 mph speed limits would increase fertility and help the GOP's election prospects.

The central fact of contemporary electoral demographics is that Republican states have more "affordable family formation" than Democratic states due to more land and cheaper housing. Thus they tend to have earlier marriage and more babies, and thus GOP "family values" campaign resonate more with voters -- because they are more likely to have families.

This country is full of empty land where houses with yards in decent school districts would be affordable to young people thinking of starting families, but most of it is inconveniently far from anywhere. Adding 50% to average speed of commutes would increase the amount of land within a given commuting time by 2.25 times, which would make housing much more affordable to younger people.

I outlined the fertility-GOP-speed limit nexus here:

http://www.isteve.com/2005_Dirt_Gap.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 19, 2007 1:47 AM

Raise the capital gains tax or reduce the rate of growth of social security benefits, and people will be less able to finance their retirements through investment and government subsidies, and will thus be more reliant on their children to support them in their old age.

Posted by Maniakes | September 19, 2007 2:37 AM

It wouldn't be hard to make part of one's social security payout variable depending on how much taxes your children have paid in. That would encourage more fertility among the net taxpaying rather than net tax-consuming classes.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 19, 2007 4:58 AM

Steve,

Your comment on the speed limit got me interested, and you raise some interesting points at the outset of your linked post. But your conclusions confirmed my gut reaction to the speed limit proposition and threw in a few remarkable parallels with some, uh, unappetizing regimes to boot.

First, with regard to the speed limit proposal, speed limits have less to do with commutes than you suppose. The posted speed limit could, in fact, be unlimited but if traffic density is such that traffic is at a standstill, your limit means bupkus.

Second, to quote you a couple of times:

All this suggests the GOP should search out new pro-marriage and pro-babies strategies for growing more Republican voters.

Don't know about you, but the images that immediately pop into my head are Hero Mothers of the Soviet Union and the child-bearing antics of a certain central European party in the '30s and '40s. Are you sure that's your vision for the GOP?

. . . make the ultra-Republican Great Basin and Great Plains more habitable. They may need water piped in, at vast public expense, from the Canadian Rockies.

Again, pure Soviet 'Grand Projectism'. Ever hear what happened to the Aral Sea? And 'at vast public expense'? Bit of sell out regarding core principles, isn't it?

Democrats . . . the party that thrives on loneliness.

Well, no one can accuse you of sugar-coating your message. I thought Democrats were socialists. You know - forcing everyone to do things collectively. I guess that's because we're so lonely, right?

Bottom line is that the whole Red State / Blue State 'divide' is a load of hooey in my opinion, anyway, but you sure espouse a lot of social engineering in order to entrench some kind of Red State dominance. Kind of reveals your true colors, doesn't it.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | September 19, 2007 9:35 AM

Outlaw the use of farm machinery.

To support the population, we'd all have to move back to the land and have large families to provide the needed labor.

Posted by Parker | September 19, 2007 9:45 AM

There's a motor vehicle-related change that would increase fertility. Build cars with larger back seats. That way, more teenagers can fool around, and ...

Posted by Peter | September 19, 2007 10:19 AM

It's a shock even for those who live in expensive areas of what the subsidy can be for section 8 housing.

When you hear numbers of 1,800 for a family of 3 in a $2,200 a month appartment, you know something's wrong.

Oh, that family of 3 does not include the man of the household, although he often lives there.

The easiest solution would be not to move people to suburbs but to outlaw marriage all together and allow the owner of a rental to rent to his own family.

This way his family can pick up check for $1,800 and put it in his own pocket.

Posted by mark | September 19, 2007 10:49 AM

Totally innocent, snark-free question, since I'm not familiar with this argument at all.... Could somebody please explain to me how the "car culture" could encourage fertility in any significant way.

I'm gathering from the posts so far that this is related in some way to home ownership and the ability to afford reasonable family-suited housing and still commute to work.

But it seems to me that this is more directly related to land affordability than to a "car culture." The relative affordability of land in the U.S. and Canada would seem to be the pre-eminent cause leading to both wider homeownership and eventually to a "car culture" for commuters. The car culture seems more like a side-effect of people moving out and buying homes.

I don't know, I could be completely off. What's the original argument in favor of the car culture's effect on fertility?

Posted by Just Another Greg | September 19, 2007 10:53 AM

Could somebody please explain to me how the "car culture" could encourage fertility in any significant way.

It can't, though try telling that to Megan.

I suggest that we go back to the old welfare model where we basically pay moms to stay at home and raise the kids. Give them a little extra the more they have. That should boost rates.

Or is it only white children you're interested in?

Posted by noen | September 19, 2007 11:35 AM

That it is very, very hard to move two or three small children around without a vehicle of some sort

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 19, 2007 11:51 AM

But it seems to me that this is more directly related to land affordability than to a "car culture."

Ya got that hint did ya?

Actually, affordabiity of housing which includes good public schools and low property taxes.

Yep, this is just Magan's way of being sneaky.

Think of this way. You eat a candy bar and then another. After a while you get tooth decay. Then the tooth falls out.

That's like social engineering. You have a city that profitable. Politicians start giving away everything under the sun including city pensions way into the future. Business start moving out, leaving residents with higher property taxes. Who then begin to move out and leave the remaining residents with even higher property taxes. Which in turn raises the rental rates higher than the people who remain can afford. Then Abracadabra, Section 8 housing. Have the State and Federal Govenment pick up some of the cost. Then the State institutes state income taxes to prop up city welfare. Then businesses from the State move to other States. And there you have it. Blue State/ Red State until you either you have 1 State or 0 State.

Posted by mark | September 19, 2007 12:06 PM

Parker - If you ban farm machinery your likely to decrease agricultural output by quite a bit. Its hard to increase the population by decreasing food supply. People generally don't want to have kids that they can't feed, and people starving decreases the population.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 19, 2007 12:35 PM

That it is very, very hard to move two or three small children around without a vehicle of some sort

To what addled mind does vehicle=car?

I suggest you invest in a dictionary. Or a thesaurus. Or both. And Strunk and White. And Eats, Shoots, Leaves. Heck, any book on writing style would help.

Dammit, let's cut to the chase. You should really go to college and get an education.

Oh. Wait. You supposedly have one o' them, dontcha? So sad.

Posted by tydanosaurus | September 19, 2007 1:02 PM

"...a ban on birth control and abortion, for example, would probably be fairly effective. But these are not things that have a reasonable chance of passing the legislature, for which we may humbly thank god every day...

Seems like South Dakota managed it. Don't get complacent.

Posted by liberalrob | September 19, 2007 1:07 PM

As people get more affluent, they desire more private space. In America, this means moving out to a large suburban home, which can still offer plenty of space for a family. In Europe or Japan, where government policy forces more compact cities of higher density, space is extremely expensive, and people compensate by having smaller families.

More here:
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2006/01/high-density-smart-growth-population.html

Posted by Tory | September 19, 2007 8:01 PM

In Europe or Japan, where government policy forces more compact cities of higher density, space is extremely expensive, and people compensate by having smaller families.

Nice in theory; a pity that in Europe, at least, the areas of highest population density (i.e. city centres) also host larger families than the suburbs. Of course, those families tend to be other than white and/or middle-class.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 19, 2007 9:33 PM

Yes, the starting condition is "as people become more affluent." A common progression of residents for a gentrifying flat in a city is from large poor family (often immigrant), to small middle class family, to a couple, to a single person - with a corresponding increase in household affluence and the desire for more private space.

Posted by Tory | September 20, 2007 6:14 PM

Dillon - I don't see the Scandinavian world burgeoning in hundreds of millions of new, cute Scandinavian babies. Gives me the sneaking suspicion that beauty doesn't increase birth rate. Now, the practice of increasing birth rate, well, the more practice the merrier.

"But these are not things that have a reasonable chance of passing the legislature, for which we may humbly thank god every day;"
Ahh, Megan hit the birthrate solution. It just isn't PC.

"Raise the capital gains tax or reduce the rate of growth of social security benefits, and people will be less able to finance their retirements through investment and government subsidies, and will thus be more reliant on their children to support them in their old age."
But of course, that'd more directly affect the death rate, not the birth rate, or perhaps I'm being a little less than charitable to the Kids.

Posted by beneficial | September 21, 2007 7:53 AM

ksnviqmwf dkyx vfsbgrw cladogs bgxwkqzt kxbdip kljtgzw

Posted by yudpnez yeizogv | May 31, 2008 12:37 PM