5 ms·

U.S. sees 5.7M more childless women than expected

22 points by geox 1y ago

throwmeaway222 1y ago
A lot of money was spent to make sure that happened
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  We should spend as much as possible to ensure that unwanted children are avoided whenever possible. The cost to not is simply too high.
  - Lammy 1y ago
    Maintain humanity under 500000000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  - panarchy 1y ago
    Don't feed the troll.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - faangguyindia 1y ago
    The people avoiding childrens are high income and education groups
    - dh2022 1y ago
      Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy? Because the whole premise of this movie is exactly what you wrote. Watch the first 5-10 minutes of the movie if nothing else.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        I don't want to get too in the weeds in this thread, but the evidence is total fertility rate is declining across all income strata, with some evidence in some places higher income women have slightly increased fertility. https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-relationship-between-income-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-... ("On the whole, a clear conclusion emerges: because different cultural groups often have unique income levels, efforts to correlate income and fertility are often deeply misleading. Global fertility decline was kicked off almost entirely by normative and cultural processes, not strictly economic ones. The effect of income on fertility is not even remotely consistent across cultures or even across times. When whole societies become richer, they do not necessarily have fewer children. Once we control for the basic problem of cultural stratification, the supposed link between low income and high fertility, or high fertility and low income, largely disappears.") [Institute for Family Studies is a pro nuclear family, pro natalist think tank, so take their analysis as you will] https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
        throwmeaway222 1y ago
        It started with the high income earners, but has shifted to others because everyone has to live with mom right now. No one can afford rent or buying a house.
- clipsy 1y ago
  Say what you actually mean: A lot of women spent money to have control over their own lives.
- dh2022 1y ago
  What do you mean?
toomuchtodo 1y ago
Related: Study Shows Number of Childless Women in the U.S. Continues to Rise - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830 - September 2025
sandy_coyote 1y ago
I talk about this topic with my (childless) wife quite a bit. Reasons we postulate: The rent is too damn high It takes longer into adulthood to achieve stability Porn brain Phone brain (24/7 infinite entertainment) Dating apps are not delightful The pandemic led some people to stay in for good Loss of third places (rent too damn high again) Tight job markets lead to reluctance to bring kids into the picture Healthcare is more expensive every year American individualism diminishes multi generational family support structures after a generation A long tail of other causes: drugs, gun violence, obesity, losing one's religion, growing up with divorced parents
- xyzelement 1y ago
  I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average. The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.
  - kashunstva 1y ago
    > even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing. But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
    - xyzelement 1y ago
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
> This represents a rapid acceleration of the trend, with the surplus of childless women growing from 2.1 million in 2016 to 4.7 million in 2022, and now to 5.7 million in 2024. Did anything happen in 2016 that young women might have interpreted as a signal that they were on their own and facing hostility?
- xyzelement 1y ago
  Not the sane ones. My wife and I are conservative. My neighbor and his wife literally worked in the Obama White House. I have a Trump-era kid and 2 Biden-era kids, as does he. Both our wives care about election outcomes and yet neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. Nobody was trending in the good direction and then was derailed by an election.
  - kashunstva 1y ago
    > neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. My wife and I are not conservative; but I would agree that no one is tracking the election results as a go/no-go indicator for child-rearing. My wife and I have 3 children, two of whom are adults so our decisions were made in a different era. Instead of bipolar political outcomes, I think many are affected by a sense of unchanging disinterest in the wellbeing of the great mass of people that populate the country. As long as the GDP rises, it’s good times, right? Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? Make life less difficult for families. Both major parties have completely failed to do this.
    - whatajoke69420 1y ago
      > Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? nice lil both-sides-ism fantasy escape - now back in reality, do tell which party specifically platforms AGAINST distribution of concentrated wealth ? and which one is FOR it? Hm?
kashunstva 1y ago
Along with the factors listed by others, I wonder to what degree that a pervasive dysphoria about the present and future is leading to a conscious decision to not usher more humans into the chaos and uncertainty that has become the American norm. I’m in my 60’s, secure and reasonably set; but even I feel an undercurrent of anxiety that pervades American life.
metalman 1y ago
The greater demographic picture is looking grim,with an ageing population, restricted imigration, total uncertainty as to what is a legitimate residency status, outright war on foriegn labour, so that american women not having children, en mass, is startling, and will have a similar effect in creating a power shift like what is happening in China and asia where governments industry, (and presumably men) are having to incentivise women to have children. American adversaries and competitors, many who were recent allies, are heading in different directions, rising income levels, and poulations, with climate and social pressures are creating challenges that have pragmatic solutions in new technologies, which the US is regecting and oposing.
Balgair 1y ago
I mean, people aren't going to try to have kids if they think that their immediate futures and longer term futures aren't worth bringing people into. Like, if you think that your future is a good place, then you're more likely to want to have kids. If we want to raise the birthrate, then we've got to listen to the people that can have kids and do what they want. It's all about perception as no one can predict the future.

22 points by geox 1y ago

throwmeaway222 1y ago

A lot of money was spent to make sure that happened

toomuchtodo 1y ago
We should spend as much as possible to ensure that unwanted children are avoided whenever possible. The cost to not is simply too high.
- Lammy 1y ago
  Maintain humanity under 500000000 in perpetual balance with nature.
- panarchy 1y ago
  Don't feed the troll.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- faangguyindia 1y ago
  The people avoiding childrens are high income and education groups
  - dh2022 1y ago
    Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy? Because the whole premise of this movie is exactly what you wrote. Watch the first 5-10 minutes of the movie if nothing else.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      I don't want to get too in the weeds in this thread, but the evidence is total fertility rate is declining across all income strata, with some evidence in some places higher income women have slightly increased fertility. https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-relationship-between-income-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-... ("On the whole, a clear conclusion emerges: because different cultural groups often have unique income levels, efforts to correlate income and fertility are often deeply misleading. Global fertility decline was kicked off almost entirely by normative and cultural processes, not strictly economic ones. The effect of income on fertility is not even remotely consistent across cultures or even across times. When whole societies become richer, they do not necessarily have fewer children. Once we control for the basic problem of cultural stratification, the supposed link between low income and high fertility, or high fertility and low income, largely disappears.") [Institute for Family Studies is a pro nuclear family, pro natalist think tank, so take their analysis as you will] https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
      - throwmeaway222 1y ago
        It started with the high income earners, but has shifted to others because everyone has to live with mom right now. No one can afford rent or buying a house.
clipsy 1y ago
Say what you actually mean: A lot of women spent money to have control over their own lives.
dh2022 1y ago
What do you mean?

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Related: Study Shows Number of Childless Women in the U.S. Continues to Rise - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830 - September 2025

sandy_coyote 1y ago

I talk about this topic with my (childless) wife quite a bit. Reasons we postulate: The rent is too damn high It takes longer into adulthood to achieve stability Porn brain Phone brain (24/7 infinite entertainment) Dating apps are not delightful The pandemic led some people to stay in for good Loss of third places (rent too damn high again) Tight job markets lead to reluctance to bring kids into the picture Healthcare is more expensive every year American individualism diminishes multi generational family support structures after a generation A long tail of other causes: drugs, gun violence, obesity, losing one's religion, growing up with divorced parents

xyzelement 1y ago
I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average. The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.
- kashunstva 1y ago
  > even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing. But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
  - xyzelement 1y ago

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

> This represents a rapid acceleration of the trend, with the surplus of childless women growing from 2.1 million in 2016 to 4.7 million in 2022, and now to 5.7 million in 2024. Did anything happen in 2016 that young women might have interpreted as a signal that they were on their own and facing hostility?

xyzelement 1y ago
Not the sane ones. My wife and I are conservative. My neighbor and his wife literally worked in the Obama White House. I have a Trump-era kid and 2 Biden-era kids, as does he. Both our wives care about election outcomes and yet neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. Nobody was trending in the good direction and then was derailed by an election.
- kashunstva 1y ago
  > neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. My wife and I are not conservative; but I would agree that no one is tracking the election results as a go/no-go indicator for child-rearing. My wife and I have 3 children, two of whom are adults so our decisions were made in a different era. Instead of bipolar political outcomes, I think many are affected by a sense of unchanging disinterest in the wellbeing of the great mass of people that populate the country. As long as the GDP rises, it’s good times, right? Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? Make life less difficult for families. Both major parties have completely failed to do this.
  - whatajoke69420 1y ago
    > Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? nice lil both-sides-ism fantasy escape - now back in reality, do tell which party specifically platforms AGAINST distribution of concentrated wealth ? and which one is FOR it? Hm?

kashunstva 1y ago

Along with the factors listed by others, I wonder to what degree that a pervasive dysphoria about the present and future is leading to a conscious decision to not usher more humans into the chaos and uncertainty that has become the American norm. I’m in my 60’s, secure and reasonably set; but even I feel an undercurrent of anxiety that pervades American life.

metalman 1y ago

The greater demographic picture is looking grim,with an ageing population, restricted imigration, total uncertainty as to what is a legitimate residency status, outright war on foriegn labour, so that american women not having children, en mass, is startling, and will have a similar effect in creating a power shift like what is happening in China and asia where governments industry, (and presumably men) are having to incentivise women to have children. American adversaries and competitors, many who were recent allies, are heading in different directions, rising income levels, and poulations, with climate and social pressures are creating challenges that have pragmatic solutions in new technologies, which the US is regecting and oposing.

Balgair 1y ago

I mean, people aren't going to try to have kids if they think that their immediate futures and longer term futures aren't worth bringing people into. Like, if you think that your future is a good place, then you're more likely to want to have kids. If we want to raise the birthrate, then we've got to listen to the people that can have kids and do what they want. It's all about perception as no one can predict the future.