The relationship between economic factors and the “baby boom” of the 1950s is not as obvious as is the case of the decline of the 1930s, but I believe it is just as strong. The fullest discussion of this relation can be found in the work of Richard Easterlin (1968, 1980), who emphasized the importance of the relative economic position of young men and women. According to Easterlin, the low birth rates of the 1930s meant that relatively few men and women entered the labor market in the 1950s. Those who did found good jobs, had good incomes, and were therefore disposed to marry early and to have many children. Apparently, higher incomes more than offset the fact that the “price” of time (as measured by hourly wages) was also rising.
In 1956 it was suggested that in countries where income is well above subsistence, “the absolute level of income is of little consequence [in explaining fertility], while the direction and rate of change of income is by far the more important factor”. Not only were young people considerable prosperity in the 1950s, but, having grown pin the thirties and forties, they were more prosperous than they had ever expected to be. This relative-income view also helps us under-stand the decline of the 1930s. After all, even during the Depression the level of living in the United States was much higher than it had been fifty years before, and much higher than in most other countries. In terms of absolute income it doesn’t make much sense to say that people couldn’t afford to have children. But in relative terms it does. Measured against aspirational levels formed earlier, many young people in the 1930s felt that their incomes were too low,