Nearly 10% decrease in number of third and higher births from 1992 to 2014

For white non-Hispanics, a little over 600k births in 1992 were the third live baby or higher.  This represented just under 1/4 of all births.  Over 75% of all births for 1992 were first or second births.

The approximate distribution of the 600k higher birth orders (less than 100% due to rounding) was:

3rd order: 66%

4th order: 22%

5th order: 7%

6th order: 2.6%

7th order: 1%

8th order or higher: 1.1%

In 2014, there were over 50k fewer such births, a bit over 550k and that represented just OVER 25% of all births for that year.

The distribution of these 550k higher-order births over 20 years later was:

3rd: 61%

4th: 23%

5th: 8.4%

6th: 3.4%

7th: 1.6%

8th or higher: 2%

The total births for 1992 were around 2.5 million, while for 2014 they were around 2.1 million.  So people were having fewer children overall, but the ones having many are chugging along pretty impressively.  The problem is that there’s no filtering for how much of that chugging along is in little horse-powered buggies, so there’s that to keep in mind.

To put this distribution of higher-order births in context, here’s the “white” distribution for 1970, ten years after the Pill and IUDs were introduced.

Total white births: approx 3.1 million

Total third or higher order white births: approx 1 million

Percentage distribution of third and higher order births:

3rd: 48%

4th: 25%

5th: 12.5%

6th: 6.4%

7th: 3.4%

8th: 4.5%

Admittedly this includes some Hispanics, but only about 4-5%, not enough to shift the overall pattern.  This pattern from 1970 could be returning at the higher orders, but it’s too soon to tell.

Ace of Spades misses the unseen use of social media to be social offline.

Ace of Spades, a fairly major conservative blogger, writes here that conservatives need to abandon Facebook.

What he misses though, probably because they’re all literally closed, secret and otherwise kept from public view, is that Facebook is where mothers, particularly the SAHMs conservatives make lots of noise about supporting, are arranging their playdates and finding childcare and cleaning help or doing swaps or looking for extra work doing those things, where they are buying and selling stuff, and all the other things that used to be on mailing lists but are increasingly on Facebook.

Small businesses have also stopped using their own webpages in many instances in favor of Facebook.

Women, especially mothers, are using Facebook to arrange IRL stuff, that’s why they can’t quit it. Find a way to make all these things as one-stop shop as Facebook is and craigslist used to be for selling and buying, and then people will exit en masse. Right now I see lots of people leaving, but not the ones who need Facebook for these arrangements. Just single people, and some older folks.

We now need social media to form social bonds locally because of breeding for antisocial and autistic tendencies.  Plus, women are social creatures and that means they want socialness offline too.  I’ve tried to join mommy-only startups, and photo-posting sites, and so on and so forth.  But the critical mass never gets there, and it’s because these SAHMs can’t quickly set something up on their phones with ten different websites.  But Facebook is integrated into every smartphone, so you can easily arrange everything from it.

Conservatives are really unwilling to confront the woman problem, which is not that women need to lead their political movements or even participate in them, but that they need to actually have a real space with status and support for women and they just plain won’t do it and then whine about the consequences of women taking on liberal alternatives that supply what they sorely need.

Draft, so very very open for discussion and disassembly.

The Poison Red Pill, an Introduction

I am finally going to start fisking and discussing “Red Pill Woman” posts because the political season in the USA has shown that a lot of the craziness the manosphere talks about regarding women’s behavior and thoughts really is more common among conservative women who are not too conservative to vote (Republican).  So for the fishbowl I swim in, it’s 30% of women instead of 10% of women.  Depressing.

Anyhoo, the main issue with Red Pill Women’s advice to other women is that Red Pill women on the internet are so profoundly male-oriented that they can’t give useful advice to other women.   Women repeating bad male advice to women is not useful to women. So I’ll criticize it and point out what’s bad about it.

I’ll also criticize it when people use their own lives as examples of living rightly.  Yes, you can have a clean slate, sort of, on the internet even if you’ve had six divorces and five kids out of wedlock and now you’re a devout Latvian Orthodox Christian at 46, but your advice on how to marry at 24 and stay married should be taken with some shakers of salt.

Red Pill Women mostly don’t introspect about how they got from A to B there.  They just talk about B like they always did it.  Red Pill Men do too, but that issue is kind of resolving itself in real time with other men taking up that task of critique.

 

25% of first marriages end in divorce, not 50%

I got the Shaunti Feldhahn divorce data book much sooner than expected.  I haven’t had a chance to read it all the way through yet, but she is using census stats, so isn’t just making up stuff.  That said, the 25% number is an estimate derived from taking widows out of the data on first marriages where the person is still married to their first spouse.  Otherwise, the number is 72% of first marriages with first spouse.

The 50% number was a projection based on trends at the time it was formulated, and even then it was 40-50%.

Anyone saying likelihood of marriage ending in divorce is 50% is not looking at how many ever-married people have divorced.

What did happen, and she notes this, is that before the 1970s divorce spikes, marriages remained intact 85% of the time.  That dropped to 70-72% (remember, this includes intact marriages where death ended the marriage, otherwise it’s closer to 75%) by 1985 and stayed there.  Interested parties might look at that stability and contrast it with fertility declines over the same period of time.

The interesting thing to me is that a 25% divorce rate is miserably bad, but there is enough data to show it’s remained constant over several marriage cohorts.  And it’s, well, it’s half of 50%.  I haven’t gotten to the part where she compares by age bracket, but that should be interesting.

 

The two kid trap.

This is a quickie, not even going to tag it out.  I notice that a lot of mommy writing online writes about having two kids like it’s more, eliding just how many kids there are.  It jumped out at me reading some random mommy post on mommyish or something, a few paragraphs long, and right at the end it says the woman has two kids.  So it wasn’t hidden, but in the piece itself she was saying “My oldest” and “my youngest”, which manages to imply more than two kids somewhere in there.  I have no idea when this started, but it’s very common now that two kids is the most common number of children women have since “my middle child” would be an outright lie.

 

Conservatives and the IT Ghost Dance

“One of the IT drones who got replaced by H1B Indians testified to Congress the other day, and just endorsed Trump.

It’s a despicable move by Disney, but fortunately they’ll reap the “rewards” of their decision as soon as all the whites they laid off are gone. There’s nothing more dysfunctional than a large group of Indians whose thought process can’t deviate from the flowchart. And there’s nothing more infuriating for the productive types (whites) than a flowchart-reading Indian.

What’ll wind up happening is Disney will either hire their old employees back as consultants, or they’ll have vendors do the real work. Vendors which, not coincidentally, happen to be white and staffed with people who are like the people they laid off. At 3x the rate.”

Another special from the My Posting Career crew.  Stripped of the racial overtones, this excerpt is bog-standard average conservative or right-wing.  It’s the IT Ghost Dance, the belief that (white) guys are all easily able to adapt to endless shifting job sands by getting extremely high paying IT consulting gigs cleaning up the outsourcing mess.

It undergirds the conservative promotion of homeschooling, of SAHMing, of living a rural prepper/homesteader life (just telecommute for six figures!), of having more kids than fingers on a hand, of whatever conservative shibboleth you please.  It’s always there and always lucrative at top 10% or even 1% levels, you just have to want it enough.

It’s really really common.  Perhaps because conservatives can’t have much of a social life in IT offline due to the high amount of libertarians and such, they are all over homesteading and farming online and have been even before we took a stab at our own agrarian LARPing (currently pending due to the same kind of health breakdowns that sent people back to the East from OG homesteading).

It also exposes the core lie of “just reskill, reskill, reskill” that is bipartisan.  There’s IT and healthcare (tons of nurses homesteading because of flex schedules) and not a whole lot else that’s telecommute or flex-schedule friendly and pays anywhere near enough to fund the kind of “self-sufficient” and independent lifestyles mentioned above.

Again, ripped only from my own experiences, but non-IT conservatives who’ve tried these things invariably end up putting the kids in public school or having to be double-income explicitly.

 

About “women delaying marriage”.

Recently the Christian manosphere has decided to blame women for the very high ages for first marriage.  They do this every few months, here’s a roundup of the latest with commentary afterwards.

Shorter Dalrock: Doug Wilson thinks lazy manbabies are keeping sweet Christian women from getting married at 22!  Joke’s on him, there are no Godly Christian women!  Churchian Carousel Bandits are keeping SUPER NICE TOTALLY MATURE AND GREAT CHRISTIAN GUYS WHO TOTALLY ARE MATURE AND STUFF from getting married at 22!  Additional Dalrock supplement to above, same premise.

Shorter Donalgraeme: I’m going to assert that later marriage is all womens’ fault and I assure you I will back it up with data at some unspecified point in the future.  But in the meantime, since most of my commenters agree with me, IT MUST BE TROOOOOOOO.

Shorter Moosenorseman: If women would just act more like dogs (amiriteboyz), there wouldn’t be a marriage crisis!

Anyway, the marriage issue is not solely the fault of naughty women and their hypergamy.  The evangelicals marrying young delay childbearing 5-10 years.  So they nominally marry early but then have kids late just like the people who delay marriage into their late 20s and early 30s.  This masks a lot of the manbaby stuff as well as the carousel issue.  Men are being more immature on average, and also in addition, women behave poorly and are immature and unrealistic as well.  Both pieces are true, not just one side of it.

And because childbearing happens at the same late 20s and early 30s point in time for most births these days, a lot of women figure that there’s no point in marrying young since they couldn’t have the kids right away anyhow.

We’re back to real vs. imaginary status again.  You get nothing marrying young and having kids right away except a lot of hassle and headache from people around you for being foolish with your childrens’ futures.  Marry young but hold off a few years, and suddenly things are fine, you were prepared.   Suddenly you might be worthy of a tuition check or ten from one set of grandparents.

Our kids are going into private school and every single one goes on at length about how you might want to hit up gramma and grandpa for that cash.  But of course, you also can’t have eight kids that way either, maybe not even four or three.

There is a lot of blaming women and parents (by which we mean MOM) for later marriage and childbearing, but basic needs are increasingly impossible to meet for people having kids right now at young ages.  This is why even single mothers overwhelmingly have a kid, not kids plural.

And as I already linked, there are Christians marrying before 25, you just have to admit that this is where the husbands and wives are (for Protestants anyhow). But for some reason, going where the young marriage is happening in America is not something any of these folks want to do….

ETA: commenter “thedeti” is going to spam now (1pm EST), so don’t reply to him if any get through.

Four middle classes from Pew Research

There has been some really fascinating and informative discussion in the comments recently about education, class and child rearing, among other things.  And it turns out a few years back (2008) Pew Research split up the people who call themselves middle class in America (53% of Americans) into four groups, which mostly explain some of the crosstalking going on.

America’s Four Middle Classes

That’s the link to the report and discussion, and there’s also a link to download the data used as well at the end.

But their four classes map to some assumptions that I know were governing my view of “middle class”.  The labels they use are Top of the Class, Anxious Middle, Satisfied Middle and Struggling Middle.

The “Top of the Class” is what I’ve always thought of as middle-middle class or very lowest entry-level upper-middle class.  Two married professionals with a kid or two, at least one has a power career, but both might.  Often reliant on mom having credentials and often higher than median income to navigate their complex systems for schooling and career entry/access.  Pew thinks of this class as primarily male, but that may well be because it includes some part-time working wives or wives whose job is to “stay home” but really navigate the system full time.

The Anxious Middle is where our household is, and I think Pew doesn’t understand that it’s probably where most of your IT-worker households are represented.  This group can earn well, but mostly doesn’t crack 100K nearly as often as the paired-off professionals do.  And IT is a historical-quirk industry, many of the men in it are painfully aware that they simply could not earn at that level in a pre-IT world and might struggle to even marry, much less earn enough to comfortably support a family.  So there’s a constant status anxiety to go with the volatility within the industry, where it’s hard to lock in a job for more than a few years at a stretch and there’s endless pressure to reskill or retrain.  Lower down the income band for this class is very likely the remnants of the blue collar workforce with solid but lowish earnings and great benefits. This is also where some of the struggling SAHM households are, where Dad makes what both consider “middle class” money, but they are constantly crunched and pinched on one income.

The Satisfied Middle is young people with decent-paying (40k or so) jobs for a single person and retired folks who live a kingly or queenly life on their 2k-3k/month pensions.  Almost half this group receives a pension or Social Security income.  And what’s left are happy because their incomes do them very well as single and childless folks or merry widows, etc.

The Struggling Middle is basically striving single mothers and married low-income families who don’t use much welfare.  This is where a fair number of the people who reject food stamps but make very little and easily qualify are.  And another chunk of the struggling SAHMs.

It’s been nearly a decade since this analysis was done, but it helps clarify where people are when they think of middle class.  I was clearly thinking only two of these four groups were middle class at all.