It turns out that TFR is not what it sounds like it would be: it is _not_ the average number of children that women are currently having.
Rather, it is "the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if she were to experience the current age-specific fertility rates." Note the "if" which turns out to matter in a lot of developed nations.
In a society where there's been a shift underway in the ages at which women choose to have children, TFR stops being an accurate measure of real-life childbearing. The actual number of children birthed by actual women will be greater than the TFR number, and can become significantly greater.
For instance in the USA the TFR has been sliding downward for years and as of 2024 was at about 1.6; but the actual "children ever born" for U.S. women has since 2010 been higher than the TFR. As of 2024 that rate of actual births was at 2.0 and had been _rising_ for each of the past two years.
Several top demographers have recently begun writing about this misunderstanding, I'll link one of them below here.
Whether this applies currently to Latin American nations, I have no idea -- are women in those societies pushing child-bearing later in their lifetimes? Have teen births been declining there?
If yes to both of those questions, then the TFR is not a good indicator of current population trends in those places.
I enjoyed reading your article. Texas rewards great teaching, good news. Kids completing High School, also good news. Reading is up, again good news. Not sure if the fertility rates are good news or not. People once said there are too many humans on the planet, now I read there are not enough humans for the workforce.
Do more of these "Odds and Ends," Chad! This was an excellent, informative lead that's given me about four more things to read. More, more, more!
That's helpful feedback, thanks!
It turns out that TFR is not what it sounds like it would be: it is _not_ the average number of children that women are currently having.
Rather, it is "the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if she were to experience the current age-specific fertility rates." Note the "if" which turns out to matter in a lot of developed nations.
In a society where there's been a shift underway in the ages at which women choose to have children, TFR stops being an accurate measure of real-life childbearing. The actual number of children birthed by actual women will be greater than the TFR number, and can become significantly greater.
For instance in the USA the TFR has been sliding downward for years and as of 2024 was at about 1.6; but the actual "children ever born" for U.S. women has since 2010 been higher than the TFR. As of 2024 that rate of actual births was at 2.0 and had been _rising_ for each of the past two years.
Several top demographers have recently begun writing about this misunderstanding, I'll link one of them below here.
Whether this applies currently to Latin American nations, I have no idea -- are women in those societies pushing child-bearing later in their lifetimes? Have teen births been declining there?
If yes to both of those questions, then the TFR is not a good indicator of current population trends in those places.
https://jenndowd.substack.com/p/is-our-population-collapsing
I enjoyed reading your article. Texas rewards great teaching, good news. Kids completing High School, also good news. Reading is up, again good news. Not sure if the fertility rates are good news or not. People once said there are too many humans on the planet, now I read there are not enough humans for the workforce.
Fewer humans = fewer children, fewer innovations, fewer problems solved, fewer workers, less revenue, more cuts to services. Humans aren't parasites.