Our we still having 2.5 children in the U.S.?

[TheWiseMan]

It seems to me if we are having 2.5 children in the US. currently and the drop in marriages and the hold out of marriage do to careers and divorces and so on. And people not believing in marriage and living together, it seems to me that we may be in some trouble in the years to come. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Holy Family pray for us. What if anything can we do to stop this unholy trend? We must protect marriage and children!

I agree. I find the low fertility rates in the Western world, rather disheartening IMO. Unfortunately, I believe that people are becming increasingly materialistic, and would rather perfer to withdrawl into a selfish reality than raise a family. Don’t people realize that children are the future?

 

[naomily]

I’m tempted to be snarky and reply that if you want more babies, you should have them, because I certainly won’t.

On a more productive note, I will add that birth rates usually drop during times of economic disparity and may pop up soon.

 

[manualman]

I’m tempted to be snarky and reply that if you want more babies, you should have them, because I certainly won’t.

On a more productive note, I will add that birth rates usually drop during times of economic disparity and may pop up soon.

I’m tempted to be snarky and promise that I’m fine with you having none.

So Europe and US-born Americans have been having economic problems for 50 years now? I missed that memo. I wasn’t born quite 50 years ago yet, but the typical standard of living for the American family in the 1950’s was one heck of a lot lower than it is today. Think of the changes? Shoveled coal in your furnace lately? Fled the heat by hanging out in your unfinished basement? Got just one car with vinyl seats, AM radio and window cranks for cooling off? Is airline travel only for businessmen and the ultra-rich? What’s your favorite radio program (since that’s your ONLY electronic entertainment option)?

You get the idea.

 

[otjm]

I’m tempted to be snarky and promise that I’m fine with you having none.

So Europe and US-born Americans have been having economic problems for 50 years now? I missed that memo. I wasn’t born quite 50 years ago yet, but the typical standard of living for the American family in the 1950’s was one heck of a lot lower than it is today. Think of the changes? Shoveled coal in your furnace lately? Fled the heat by hanging out in your unfinished basement? Got just one car with vinyl seats, AM radio and window cranks for cooling off? Is airline travel only for businessmen and the ultra-rich? What’s your favorite radio program (since that’s your ONLY electronic entertainment option)?

You get the idea.

I am not sure that I agree with your analysis thatthe standard of living was that much lower 50 years ago.

I was born in 1946. My dad was a barber, my mother SAHM. I was the first of 4 kids. When I was 4, my parents moved from their first (tiny) house, to one they had build. Granted that it was 1250 sf, 3 bedrooms one bath, we all survived. My parents made double payments on their mortgage and triple when they could afford it; 8 years later thy had paid the house off.

Luckily, as a few months later my dad had a stroke; he could work after that but it was at a descending rate; my mother had to get a job. He had surgery for (slow growing) brain cancer when I was in high school. We all went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, and all of us made it through college - but then, we all worked (child labor laws were basically non-existent). And that was on whatever a barber made.

What most people don’t understand is that 50 to 60 years ago, the cost of living was much lower in relation to wages; which is another way of saying that a family could do well with one wage earner; now they seem to scrape by with two working. This point seems rarely to be brought up in economic discussions.

 

[otjm]

Interestingly, there is something not brought up, and that is the issue of immigration.

The old saw that nature abhors a vacuum applies. As birth rates go down, the more economically advanced nations are not producing enough bodies to fill the number of jobs. Any number of European nations have had tremendous immigration, primarily from the middle East, which is to say, from Arabic countries. And Arabic countries have a much higher brith rate than the countries they are moving to. Their birht rate is coming along with them; and before anyone says that it will rapidly descend once they “join in” to the society they are moving to, the fact is, they are not assimilating into those societies.

The short of it is that Muslims are heading towards succeeding now where they failed in the 1200’s.

In the US, first generation Latinos are maintaining a higher birth rate than the rest of the population; although statistically, the indications are that second generation Latinos’ birth rates are approaching the rest of the population. However, immigration is changing the demographics; and while the US is largely white European descent (the next closest is 16% African descent), immigration coupled with birth rates is swinging that demographic.

 

[otjm]

Another point, at least about China: the ratio of male births to female births seems to be getting seriously out of whack in favor of male births. Somewhere along the line, one would suspect that enough tension may develop over the imbalance that chaos may result. Whether that chaos is internal conflict, or war with other nations (and which ones is anyone’s guess), it would seem that it amounts to a powder keg with an unknown amount of lit fuse.

I don’t know if anyone has ever done an analysis of male to female ratios in relation to wars, but I suspect it would be intriguing. On the other hand, perhaps it has never been an issue, or the information is not adequately available, but it sure seems fodder for sociologists to watch.

 

[glendab]

Hello OTJM.

I am not sure that I agree with your analysis thatthe standard of living was that much lower 50 years ago.

I was born in 1946. My dad was a barber, my mother SAHM. I was the first of 4 kids. When I was 4, my parents moved from their first (tiny) house, to one they had build. Granted that it was 1250 sf, 3 bedrooms one bath, we all survived. My parents made double payments on their mortgage and triple when they could afford it; 8 years later thy had paid the house off.

Luckily, as a few months later my dad had a stroke; he could work after that but it was at a descending rate; my mother had to get a job. He had surgery for (slow growing) brain cancer when I was in high school. We all went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, and all of us made it through college - but then, we all worked (child labor laws were basically non-existent). And that was on whatever a barber made.

What most people don’t understand is that 50 to 60 years ago, the cost of living was much lower in relation to wages; which is another way of saying that a family could do well with one wage earner; now they seem to scrape by with two working. This point seems rarely to be brought up in economic discussions.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but I think your mom and pop are saintly and you’re a very blessed child of God to have had them. Sorry but I felt compelled to let you know that is how you’re share struck me.

As for you comment on the termites eating away at the wages earned by folks, you are 100% correctimundo! A dollar earned even in the 60’s went a whole lot further then a dollar today and the cost of housing. Most can no longer afford a home of their own. Build a house or have one built? Impossible for most.

Glenda

 

[Vico]

You’re right that the 2012 update did correct the absurd assumption of return to 2.1 in the 2010 projection. That’s the problem having amateur hobbies, it’s hard to keep up to date.

IIRC, they were still projecting increases from today’s numbers in spite of the fact that today’s numbers are somewhat propped up by immigration from high TFR countries. Once TFR drops in those countries, the even lower native TFR of the Euro nations will (I suspect) be revealed.

You sound recently versed, do you remember the 2012 median and low range long term convergence point assumed for countries currently in the ‘very low’ TFR categories? Is your quote saying that 1.85 is for that category alone? Because I’m not sure I buy most of those places seeing that much increase AFTER the scenario arises where many fertile age citizens are paying for retirement benefits for greater numbers of elderly. The generation burdened with massive social benefit cost increases is suddenly going to have more kids than mom or grandma did? Right…

It was for: Figure V.9. Comparison of total fertility projections for 2095-2100 with 80% projection intervals between the 2010 and 2012 Revisions for all low fertility countries in 2005-2010 not having experienced any increase in at least two consecutive periods between 1950-2010 (p. 33 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Highlights and Advance Tables)
Now, that included these European countries (Panel A):Albania, Austia, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, TFYR Macedonia, Ukraine.
And these (Panel B):Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahama, Brazil, Chile, China, Macao SAR, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, PR Korea, Georgia, Iran, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Martinique, Mauritius, Myanmar, Puerto Rico, R Korea, Saint Lucia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, UAE, Viet Nam.
From the 1012 Wall Chart (Total Fertility Rate, Children Per Woman)

5.4 Sub-Saharan Africa (e)
4.5 Least developed countries (c)
3.1 Less developed regions, excluding China
2.7 Less developed regions (b)
2.5 World
2.4 Other less developed countries (d)
1.7 More developed regions (a)

a More developed regions comprise Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand and Japan.

b Less developed regions comprise all regions of Africa, Asia (except Japan), Latin America and the Caribbean plus Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia.

c The least developed countries, as defined by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolutions (59/209, 59/210, 60/33, 62/97, 64/L.55, 67/L.43) included 49 countries in June
2013: 34 in Africa, 9 in Asia, 5 in Oceania and one in Latin America and the Caribbean. The group includes 49 countries - Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and
Zambia. These countries are also included in the less developed regions.

d Other less developed countries comprise the less developed regions excluding the least developed countries.

e Sub-Saharan Africa refers to all of Africa except Northern Africa.

 

[Julianna]

I think here in the US. we are being brought over this Communist lead sterilization ideas indirectly and mostly through the media and it’s shows. **Most of these social ideas have trickled through from Europe where mass exterminations and genocide occurred. ** There mindset has been welcomed by many in the social media and by our intellects. Let’s keep up in prayers and support of children.

Really? And if weren’t for Europe, a fairly large group of us wouldn’t be here in the good ol US of A. Broad brush there WilT.

I think most of the Native Americans though would agree with you about exterminations and genocides. And that happened wayyyyy before internet.

 

[manualman]

What most people don’t understand is that 50 to 60 years ago, the cost of living was much lower in relation to wages; which is another way of saying that a family could do well with one wage earner; now they seem to scrape by with two working. This point seems rarely to be brought up in economic discussions.

It is brought up and it’s a good point until you realize how much of our current expenses arise from stuff that simply didn’t exist back then. You’re absolutely correct that the median middle class lifestyle today pretty much requires two incomes to barely afford.

But I’d assert that if you consciously decided to raise your family in a 1950’s standard of living (1,200SF ranch, with one car in that one car garage, no cable TV, no airplane vacations, no orthodontists, no cell phones, no computers, no central AC, very rare eating out, etc…) you probably COULD still make it on one income if the stay-home spouse devoted that time to economic efficiencies the way Grandma did. I don’t mean it as a values judgment because I DO have most of those luxuries, but somewhere along the line our society got sold on the idea that luxuries are necessities required for happiness. We got sold a bill of goods.

 

[Luvz2travel]

Yes, we will be in some trouble, along with Europe. It will be the next big problem. Declining populations lead to declining economies and ghost towns and unfunded entitlements.

google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fertility+rate+in+the+united+states

I don’t think we need to worry. With all the illegal people flowing in our population will remain steady is not grow. We have a great advantage in having fairly open boarders and still being a place people want to go. European have let too many different cultures in to the point where there own cultures are being erroded and may not last. I’m not sure if this is good or bad and europeans have generally been drifting away from God anyway so maybe they need a new culture to bring him back. Regardless. I would worry that the US will ever lack in populaton. It’s also normal for civiliations and cultures to change and die out. I doubt the christian faith will ever die out but other cultures may adopt it such as the growing christian church in china.