i just read a snide askhistorians thread where this ass insisted an italian had to be exaggerating child labor in 16th century England, because what really went on was on-average later marriages!
so that's libshit, right? western europe getting so rich cuz late marriage & not y'know, enclosure, proletarianisation, and imperialism is pretty ridiculous.
but if anyones read hajnal and thinks theres something to it please share
i can't imagine it having zero effect but it's probably not very important compared to imperial plunder. women would have had a few years more to dedicate to non-reproductive labor, but they would still have a bunch of children later so even the malthusian argument is iffy.