• el_muerte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The U.S. general fertility rate has fallen by 22% since 2007, a sustained decline not readily explained by economic conditions, contraceptive use, housing or childcare costs, or other commonly cited factors.

    “I will now present no evidence whatsoever that falling birth rates haven’t been driven by economic factors.” Bull shit.

    Fucking unhinged. We’ve had what, three? “once in a lifetime” crashes since 2007, with skyrocketing housing prices and costs of living vs comparatively flat wage growth. Inequality is rising, fascism is making a comeback around the globe, we’ve likely already hit numerous climate tipping points, child labour laws are being rolled back, oligarchs are floating bringing back corporate towns, but sure champ, people having easier access to porn is responsible for lower birth rates…

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Hmm, fertility dropped “from June 2007 through February 2011”. And they attribute it to the iPhone. But what else happened during that period? Oh right a big financial crisis.

    And there’s already data out there that shows an economic decline correlates to a drop in births

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I have my doubts too but to be fair they compared the data against Verizon and Sprint which did not have the iphone in that time.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        42 minutes ago

        But they did have other smart phones and if the claim were true, that would mean its something only affecting Apple users and that the effects are nearly instantaneous which makes no sense.

  • disorderly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I skimmed the paper and wouldn’t take too much stock in it. One glaring issue I see is that the “control” for their analysis is another cell network that is absolutely tiny by comparison and services a completely different population from AT&T, so they’re not really isolating other variables, they’re cherry-picking data and over-indexing on it.

    The other thing that immediately jumped out at me is the format-- it sure looks an awful lot like an academic thesis, and the authors are a professor and a student who started this work during their undergrad. There’s surely no way a respectable journal would publish this document in its current iteration, so why is it in the news? Weird.