4 ms·

The trends behind the historically low U.S. birth rate

15 points by MilnerRoute 1y ago

MilnerRoute 1y ago
These seem to be the two main reasons for the decline in the U.S., according to the article. - A public policy demographer says despite more women in their late 30s having children, "it's not making up for fertility declines among younger women. What's coming to appear is that a lot of these babies are just going to be forgone entirely. They're not going to be born." - There's also a decline in teen pregancies, and the article quotes a population center director who attributes that to more effective contraception. "The United States has always had much higher rates of teen and unplanned pregnancies than other countries. This is a success story... that people are able to avoid having births early on, when they themselves would say, 'This is not the right time for me.'"
- Henchman21 1y ago
  "People really need to feel confident about the future… having kids is sort of an irreversible decision and it's a long-term one" Don't discount this reason, it's pretty powerful.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    Children are a sign of optimism and hope. Dying societies forgo them.
    - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
      What are you saying, that the shithole countries which have the highest birth rates have the most optimistic people? Do you not understand the desperate circumstances under which a couple can have 10 kids? Children are a sign of optimism in a poetic sense only. It doesn't affect how many children are actually born.
      - Henchman21 1y ago
        It certainly does when people have access to birth control, which they generally don’t in “shithole countries”.
JoeAltmaier 1y ago
Almost every country in the world is in birth-decline. The US is just along the trajectory a little further. Japan leads the way with catastrophically low rates, well under replacement.
- absolutelastone 1y ago
  South Korea has the lowest birth rate. Japan has an older population and higher death rate, so a faster shirking population currently.
decremental 1y ago
[dead]
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
moonlet 1y ago
Literally all they have to do is make sure all women have maternity leave, and paid childcare for the first three years, and set limits on how high prenatal and birth medical bills can be. You’d think a bunch of supposedly “pro” “natalists” who are “pro” “life” in or adjacent to the government would be gagging at the bit to make it as easy as possible to have babies.
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  Well I imagine the people who call themselves “conservatives” probably want to switch back to the old thing, not try another new thing.
  - more_corn 1y ago
    Be explicit about what that “old thing” is.
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      Women caring for their own children, of course. This thing where we outsource childcare to poorly paid strangers is a social experiment. Funding that with public money to increase adoption even further is another social experiment. These social experiments may turn out to be brilliant successes in the long run, I have no idea and I’m not stating any opinion there. But, the people who call themselves conservatives, probably want to conserve the old practice, instead of trying out more new practices. That is basically what they do.
- 1123581321 1y ago
  Are you thinking of a certain study? Meta analysis is mixed on your proposals. There have been some countries where more leave and financial assistance increases births, but causality is unknown. And those births were in some countries among older parents more financially established, not the young couples who would benefit the most. In other countries there’s been no found correlation. The infamous Spanish study found more paternity leave to decrease fertility. :) State-provided benefits not driving fertility makes some intuitive sense. The countries with high birth rates are not the wealthy and comfortable ones.
blendo 1y ago
All else being equal, having to grow food for 1 billion people would be a lot easier than for 8 billion. And apartments would be a lot cheaper, too.
- more_corn 1y ago
  Agreed, but the societal effects of such a dramatic shrinking of the population would be devastating.
more_corn 1y ago
Well we’ve historically been a nation of immigrants. Smart, capable people from all over the world come here for education and economic opportunity so we should be fine.
hn_acker 1y ago
Related commentary about proposals to increase US birth rate at [1]. [1] More babies, but less support for families? How ironic. - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-babies-but-less-support-for-families-how-ironic/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-babies-but-less-supp...

15 points by MilnerRoute 1y ago

These seem to be the two main reasons for the decline in the U.S., according to the article. - A public policy demographer says despite more women in their late 30s having children, "it's not making up for fertility declines among younger women. What's coming to appear is that a lot of these babies are just going to be forgone entirely. They're not going to be born." - There's also a decline in teen pregancies, and the article quotes a population center director who attributes that to more effective contraception. "The United States has always had much higher rates of teen and unplanned pregnancies than other countries. This is a success story... that people are able to avoid having births early on, when they themselves would say, 'This is not the right time for me.'"

Henchman21 1y ago
"People really need to feel confident about the future… having kids is sort of an irreversible decision and it's a long-term one" Don't discount this reason, it's pretty powerful.
- bombcar 1y ago
  Children are a sign of optimism and hope. Dying societies forgo them.
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
    What are you saying, that the shithole countries which have the highest birth rates have the most optimistic people? Do you not understand the desperate circumstances under which a couple can have 10 kids? Children are a sign of optimism in a poetic sense only. It doesn't affect how many children are actually born.
    - Henchman21 1y ago
      It certainly does when people have access to birth control, which they generally don’t in “shithole countries”.

JoeAltmaier 1y ago

Almost every country in the world is in birth-decline. The US is just along the trajectory a little further. Japan leads the way with catastrophically low rates, well under replacement.

absolutelastone 1y ago
South Korea has the lowest birth rate. Japan has an older population and higher death rate, so a faster shirking population currently.

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

moonlet 1y ago

Literally all they have to do is make sure all women have maternity leave, and paid childcare for the first three years, and set limits on how high prenatal and birth medical bills can be. You’d think a bunch of supposedly “pro” “natalists” who are “pro” “life” in or adjacent to the government would be gagging at the bit to make it as easy as possible to have babies.

pfannkuchen 1y ago
Well I imagine the people who call themselves “conservatives” probably want to switch back to the old thing, not try another new thing.
- more_corn 1y ago
  Be explicit about what that “old thing” is.
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    Women caring for their own children, of course. This thing where we outsource childcare to poorly paid strangers is a social experiment. Funding that with public money to increase adoption even further is another social experiment. These social experiments may turn out to be brilliant successes in the long run, I have no idea and I’m not stating any opinion there. But, the people who call themselves conservatives, probably want to conserve the old practice, instead of trying out more new practices. That is basically what they do.
1123581321 1y ago
Are you thinking of a certain study? Meta analysis is mixed on your proposals. There have been some countries where more leave and financial assistance increases births, but causality is unknown. And those births were in some countries among older parents more financially established, not the young couples who would benefit the most. In other countries there’s been no found correlation. The infamous Spanish study found more paternity leave to decrease fertility. :) State-provided benefits not driving fertility makes some intuitive sense. The countries with high birth rates are not the wealthy and comfortable ones.

blendo 1y ago

All else being equal, having to grow food for 1 billion people would be a lot easier than for 8 billion. And apartments would be a lot cheaper, too.

more_corn 1y ago
Agreed, but the societal effects of such a dramatic shrinking of the population would be devastating.

more_corn 1y ago

Well we’ve historically been a nation of immigrants. Smart, capable people from all over the world come here for education and economic opportunity so we should be fine.

hn_acker 1y ago

Related commentary about proposals to increase US birth rate at [1]. [1] More babies, but less support for families? How ironic. - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-babies-but-less-support-for-families-how-ironic/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-babies-but-less-supp...