Second demographic transition

We are going through a “second demographic transition," according to the demographer, Ron Lesthaeghe of Belgium's University of Ghent. The first demographic transition occurred during the early to mid 20^th century and brought with a golden age of marriage and family life. During this period, more people were married, divorce rates were low, and the age of first marriage actually declined for both men and women to the lowest levels since the Renaissance. The second demographic transition which began in the 1960s and accelerated during the 1980s is marked by declining rates of marriage, rising divorce rates, falling fertility, and a sharp rise in the age of marriage for both men and women. In a fascinating, data-rich analysis with University of Michigan researcher, Lisa Neidert, published this month in Population and Development Review, Lesthaeghe lays out how the second demographic transition is shaping politics, economics and culture in the United States (hat tip: Bill Bishop).

Download the article.

Maps for the second demographic transition.

Second demographic transition website.

Comments

[Michael Bindner]

I wonder how much of that has to do with the rising educational levels of women? This is not to denigrate the progress of women, but only to point out a possible causal agent. If this is a causal agent, then the needed adaption is to make it possible for men to comfortably be the dependent spouse, which involves another cultural transition, this time in attitudes. Women expect men to be fulfilled by their jobs and see us as lazy when we don't earn money. Yet some of us are nurtures, and always have been. My grandfather, after he lost his seat on the Chicago Board of Trade, did some sales but never really got his career back. His wife had and he raised the children while she worked as an RN. When my daughter was born, I stayed home and finished my manuscript, posting it on the web twice (once on a "normal" web page and a second time on a free one). My wife's generation was not raised to be confident prime wage earners (as if men ever were secure about being in that position). If the birth rate is ever going to get back up there, someone is going to have to stay home and raise the kids - arguably the most creative work on the planet - that or working hours must be flexible enough so that one parent is always home while the other is working - with total working hours low enough so that they are not killing themselves to do that.

The creative economy is making shorter days possible. If everyone wants a career, then work days need to be shorter - as well as shorter work weeks. (6.5 hrs x 4 days).

[Michael Bindner]

Just a procedural comment. Richard, do you get automatic notification of comment posts? I have posted on a few articles from a few days ago and I want to see if you have read them.

[Richard]

Michael-I do not get automatic notification, and typically look at comments intermittently. I always resonate with yours and appreciate them very much. Will try to reply with more later.

[Richard]

Michael - Agreed. Though I'm not sure the choice has to be so stark. My Swedish colleagues tell me virtually all women work in Sweden and have few of the troubles we seem to have here balancing work and family. In fact, they think it is a false choice. What, they believe, is needed are support structures that work for families, like accessible, affordable, on-site child-care for one. When you think about this, the social benefits of such a family-friendly system far outweigh any costs.

[Wendy]

I think the observations in the second demographic transition have more to do with the independence and desire of men and women to follow their personal aspirations -- whether careers, hobbies, or a balance.

Canada and much of western europe offers far more family-friendly leave policies than the USA, and yet the fertility rate is lower in these places than in the US!

As an aside, in Canada, for example, parental leave is 37 weeks (either parent can take it) and maternity leave is 15 weeks (for a woman giving birth). Worker salaries are partially compensated through the government's Employment Insurance system and sometimes supplemented by the employer.

Back to the topic: I haven't read the full article, but looked at the graphs. It seems though that there are two Americas. One going through the 2nd demographic revolution (later and multiple marriages and fewer kids) and one not -- continuing to have many children with a husband who earns income in the paid workforce.

[Richard]

Wendy - You are soooo right. I tried to argue this point about the "two Americas" in Flight. The one, based largely in a dozen or so city-regions is fully engaged in this transition and the shift to what Ron Ingelhart calls "post-materialist" values. And then there is the other America that is being left further and further behind and is getting more anxious and scared everyday, and thus clinging to the past. I think many countries have this tension, but in America it may be worse. This divide, so to speak, makes it - and will continue to make it - very hard for America to develop anything resembling a proactive response to these challenges. And it's here that I think Canada and several other nations like Australia and New Zealand and some of the Scandinavian nations have some opportunity on which to capitalize. The question is: Can they run with it?

[Michael Bindner]

ultimately we need to bring the two America's together. A tax code supported living wage - on the order of six times the current tax credit for each child - with matching credits at the state level - will allow the "red America" to follow a traditional course and not get its lunch eaten economically.

[Wendy]

I'm not sure that you can "bring the two Americas" together. The more rural and religious American culture can be traced back to the arrival of the first Europeans looking for freedom to live a "more pure religious life." I don't see that culture changing, even though a more urban, international culture also exists in many US cities.

So, Americans will need to find a way accept and embrace a "multi-national" or "multi-cultural" outlook that includes both approaches to life -- which have been a part of the US for a long time. For whatever reason, more recently, the tensions between the two seem stronger.

[Michael Bindner]

I think most of "red America" will respond to some kind of compromise movement that gives them a better life, and pushing such a movement may just be the thing that makes room for both prosperity and tolerance. People are intolerant because they are afraid. If we can make sure they have nothing to fear, they will come around.

[Richard]

Michael - You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Question: if we see it and can articulate it, why is it that not a single national political figure is even close?

[Michael Bindner]

Richard, Maybe a few of us should run for office or get hired by someone who is, or has. The truth is always in the center, which is why we can't trust the partisans to repeat it. I have been trying to cobble together a centrist political movement, but have had no big fish and very few little ones. If either Clark fails in the Democratic primaries because he is two far to the right or Giuliani in the GOP as too far to the left, maybe we can attract some bigger fish. It would be easier to catch such fish if I had a book deal or if one or both of us had a regular cable gig.

Any ideas?

[Michael Bindner]

Another way to attract attention is to get clients. If we used some of the methods described on a major manufacturer, say GM, it would attract attention and influence, as any client would then want to change public policy, which means they will be giving out money through direct and indirect contributions. Suddenly politicians will start talking our language.