Note the truncated vertical scale, however.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In NJ suburbs I refer to it as “hedge fund fours” — rich enough to have the luxury of 4 children (and a lot of help)
-
We (
@thehauer and I) have an alternative estimate of TFR > 3 for those million-a-year-plus folks. We're still checking it carefully, though. - 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is that household income in the pre-birth year? Otherwise income would naturally fall with births due to leave taking. (The very high incomes obvs have something different going on))
-
Excellent point. ACS Qs refer to births and total HH income over the 12 months before the survey date. On avg births would have happened 6 months into the period for which income is reported. In short: you're right that recent births might cause lower recent incomes.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Wow I've been making this case to friends and family. What is the source - is there a link? Thx.
-
This is from the American Community Survey, a US Census product. This is accumulated data from monthly samples over 2012-2016, and uses the Qs on HH income and whether/not women had a birth in the past year. Raw data is at https://usa.ipums.org/usa/
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
reasons???????
-
The cost of children varies with income. Women in "middle" income households are most likely to be in the labor market, so they face higher $ costs for each hour spent on child-raising.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Very interesting. We need to explore this in
@DSTdk data. -
I know of at least one working paper that did this using Swedish data!
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.