> As one moved down the class ladder in the urban dynamics model, classist assumptions about the urban poor piled up: birth rates were higher
Why is this controversial, or, for that matter, an assumption? There's plenty of studies demonstrating correlation between income and fertility... or are they implying that the correlation is only meaningful nation-wide, not within any particular city?
No, it is arguing that it is factually wrong based on prejudice. Most obviously that the groups negative factors aren't inherent and their contributions aren't valued.
That would be worded very differently than it actually is in the article. It specifically states that the very notion that urban poor have higher birthrates is in and of itself a "classist assumption", not because other factors are omitted.
Why is this controversial, or, for that matter, an assumption? There's plenty of studies demonstrating correlation between income and fertility... or are they implying that the correlation is only meaningful nation-wide, not within any particular city?