Do Car Seat Mandates Reduce the Number of Children Families Have?

[Bootes Void]

A new working paper argues that car seat laws are discouraging moms from having a third child.

Are car seat mandates responsible for reducing the number of children born each year? A provocative new study claims that the steady upward creep in the ages at which states mandate children use a car seat is prompting women to either postpone or opt against having a third child.

The paper, by Jordan Nickerson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and David Solomon of Boston College, argues that most vehicles cannot fit a third car seat in the back row, necessitating the purchase of a larger car if a parent is going to cart around three children at once. That added cost, they argue, disincentivizes some women from having a third child.

"We find that when a woman has two children below the car seat age, her chances of giving birth that year decline by 0.73 percentage points," write Nickerson and Solomon, relying on U.S. Census Bureau data on the age and number of children for each woman surveyed. "This represents a large decline, as the probability of giving birth for a woman age 18-35 with two children already is 9.36 [percent] in our sample."

Are Nickerson and Solomon right? Maybe, but there are reasons to be skeptical. It's a correlational study, and the authors have to control for a large number of variables to try to tease out the effect of car seat laws on fertility.

A post at the blog Less Wrong also questions the underlying premise of the paper, noting that parents could avoid the costs of having to purchase a larger car by buying narrower car seats, and that there are car seats on the market that would still manage to fit three abreast in even small cars.

https://reason.com/2020/10/01/do-car-seat-mandates-reduce-the-number-of-children-families-have/

[Kingpoleon]

Alternatively, when families have two young children, they tend to be against having a third until those two are at least a little older.

In families of three or four children, there is virtually always a gap of five years or more between the second and third child, and an average gap of 1.5-2.5 years between the first two. Why? Because having children aged 7, 5, and newborn, is much more feasible than children aged 4, 2, and newborn.

It really has more to do with when children are separated from their parents to go to school than anything else. When the second child goes to school, it is not unusual for parents to then have a kid.

[EastOfEden]

Absurd natalist talking point, complete with spurious correlation.

[Former President tack50]

Don't most cars have 5 seats? So they could still have 3 kids easily, though admittedly once needs to be old enough to be able to use the middle seat.

Or since many middle class and upper middle class families already have 2 cars, the oldest kid can go with dad and the younger 2 with mum or the other way around.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

I only read the thread title and not who the OP was initially, amd assumed this was an Olawakandi thread.

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

I think there are other reasons which are *faaar* more relevant as to why fertility is below replacement level in pretty much all of the Western world.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Alternatively, when families have two young children, they tend to be against having a third until those two are at least a little older.

In families of three or four children, there is virtually always a gap of five years or more between the second and third child, and an average gap of 1.5-2.5 years between the first two. Why? Because having children aged 7, 5, and newborn, is much more feasible than children aged 4, 2, and newborn.

It really has more to do with when children are separated from their parents to go to school than anything else. When the second child goes to school, it is not unusual for parents to then have a kid.

There are active PR campaigns by social welfare agencies to promote "birth control".  I took my daughter-in-law to the local health department many years ago and saw a poster with flyers prominently displayed:  "Two Years Apart Is Baby-Smart" was the theme.  I'm assuming that this theme is still being emphasized.  

It's certainly prudent for most people.  The cost of infant day care is extreme, and the cost of preschool is also pretty intense; it can eat up the entire paycheck of a working mother who is working as something less than a "professional" job.  I say this as the husband of a former Assistant Director  of a daycare; I am familiar what people pay for daycare.  My wife's job paid horribly, but it provided us with the discounted daycare rate for our youngest son (who, of course, got to go to daycare where my wife worked).  

I don't know how true the premise of this thread is.  Little kids are in a carrier, and they are in different car seats at different times.  Car seats aren't cheap, but they are a one-time expense for the most part.  I'm sure it's a contributor.  A bigger factor would be the cost of childcare.  For those of you who aren't there yet, you will be shocked when you see that tab.

[jimrtex]

Alternatively, when families have two young children, they tend to be against having a third until those two are at least a little older.

In families of three or four children, there is virtually always a gap of five years or more between the second and third child, and an average gap of 1.5-2.5 years between the first two. Why? Because having children aged 7, 5, and newborn, is much more feasible than children aged 4, 2, and newborn.

It really has more to do with when children are separated from their parents to go to school than anything else. When the second child goes to school, it is not unusual for parents to then have a kid.

An evolutionary theory behind the terrible twos is that the parents, particularly the mother,   would be too tired to have another (or perhaps not even wanting another). After this, they enter the cute/sweet stage.

[Skill and Chance]

Almost certainly a spurious correlation.  Car expenses and not the cost of housing/childcare/reduced work hours for the primary caregiver being the limiting factor for families is hard to believe. 

[DC Al Fine]

Not in and of themselves, but it could be a condensed symbol of all the various and sundry little ways our society makes procreation and family formation more difficult.