Birthrates are falling to historic lows across the developed world, and understanding why is a priority for governments worried about the impact on growth and public finances. Our own preferences and priorities play a big part, research suggests: Career progression, social norms and how we choose to spend our time are key, as is our desire to be better and more focused parents for the current 1.38 average births per woman in Europe and 1.59 in the US (it used to be about 2.1 not so long ago). Typically, as countries get richer, fertility rates tend to decline.
So why, then, do some of the wealthiest people on the planet seem to equate status with having more, not fewer, children? Elon Musk, who dreams of repopulating the planet, has fathered 14 children. Luxury mogul Bernard Arnault has five, each with an appointed role in his LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE empire. Telegram Messenger owner Pavel Durov has six — not counting the eyebrow-raising 100 future heirs he claims to have fathered through sperm donations across 12 countries, something Musk’s father also appears interested in.
Maybe it is an alpha-male thing — and not something most of us would see as exemplary fatherhood, judging by reports of how Musk treats the mothers of his infant “legion.” Yet a look at the top 100 wealthiest Americans on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, including women like Melinda Gates and Diana Hendricks, shows they have just more than three children on average — more baby boom than bust. A study of the 948 wealthiest Americans by economist Ria Wilken published in January calculated an average of 2.99 children.
Billionaires do skew male overall and do a fair bit of remarrying, so this cannot be directly compared with the national (female) fertility rate. Still, 2.99 is higher than the 1.94 average children per family recorded in US census data. Most Americans (71%) have had two children or fewer, according to last year’s General Social Survey.
It would seem that whatever the preferences and norms of the industrialized world are, they do not neatly map onto the uber-rich.
One theory is that this is because billionaires live by a genuinely different code, more akin to Carolingian dynasties in medieval Europe than the cuddly slapstick of Cheaper by the Dozen. They are more likely to want to prioritize succession, reproduction and capital preservation than the rest of us. That could lead to more traditional attitudes to coupling up. Wilken estimates a whopping 95 percent of billionaires have a partner in an upper-class position, technically known as “homogamy,” and that billionaires’ wives are more likely to occupy positions that depend on their husband’s income. Other factors like religion might be at work.
However, a simpler conclusion is that more money means having the number of kids you want. With the cost of raising a child to adulthood estimated at US$310,605 in the US, no amount of preferences or norms can get away from the fact that kids are “very expensive,” as demographer Jennifer Sciubba said. Even as fertility rates plummet in countries like Sweden and Japan, data suggests better-off men and women are more likely to have children than less well-off men and women. A UN survey last month found 40 percent of respondents blamed financial barriers for keeping them from having an ideal family size. The relationship between fertility and income decile is starting to look more U-shaped.
“The trend in fertility is driven by a rise in inequality,” said economist Matthias Doepke, author of Love, Money and Parenting, citing examples from the cost of accessing childcare to the cost of housing in big cities where the best-paid jobs are.
Accepting this could be key for the right kind of parent-friendly policy at a time of panic and desperate fixes — not to mention resistance to immigration. Cash bonuses for new parents, as seen in countries like Italy, Greece and now China, are unlikely to move the needle at US$500 to US$2,500.
What might work better is access to the kind of infrastructure, housing and work flexibility that the wealthy have in abundance, according to former Bloomberg economist Maxime Sbaihi’s recent book on falling birthrates. He cites data suggesting Norway’s push to improve daycare access from the mid-1970s improved the fertility rate by 0.1 for every 10 percent rise in the rate of children in care. Despite France’s own worsening outlook, its birthrate is double South Korea’s, a sign that generous support for childcare, family allowances and parental leave can make a difference. Fairer taxation could also help.
There is no silver bullet here, but as we pore over the roots of the baby bust, do not ignore the groups that appear to be booming.
Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and the future of Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS