U.S. Birth Rate Drops Below Replacement Level

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pro_Life_News

Guest
By Patrick B. CraineWASHINGTON, D.C., April 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. births dropped 2% in 2008, bringing the country’s birth rate below replacement level, new government statistics released Tuesday reveal.The U.S. National Vital Statistics Report showed that the U.S. birth rate dropped…

Full article…
 
Well, at least European countries’ domestic policies and forms of government can’t be blamed for this…
 
Yellow_Belle said:
Well, at least European countries’ domestic policies and forms of government can’t be blamed for this…
Click to expand...
😛

I haven’t seen statistics for European countries, but the dip in the US birth rate may be due the economic downturn. The Washington Post article suggests that a significant portion of the population is deferring having children until the economy improves.

Are other developed countries also undergoing a dip in their birth rates?
 
considering the massive amount of resources consumed by humans, I think a reduced birth rate is a good thing.

I am not the kind to advocate people stop having children to save the environment, but it is clear that the world population cannot rise infinitely higher.
 
csuliman said:
I am not the kind to advocate people stop having children to save the environment, but it is clear that the world population cannot rise infinitely higher.
Click to expand...
I don’t think population growth in a country which is able to provide for its people is a problem. Economic prosperity tends to reduce the number of children which couples have. Chile, the world’s most recent country to achieve first world status, is an example of that. Its birth rate went from roughly 5 children per woman in 1950, to roughly 2 children per woman in 2008. Chile’s population level is essentially flat, like that of the US.

I think the answer for world population growth is to help the economies of the poorest nations develop. Its in those countries where population growth is so high.
 
Dale_M said:
😛

Are other developed countries also undergoing a dip in their birth rates?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I tried to find info on this in the European context but it’s incomplete. I know that here in Ireland we’ve been experiencing an increasing birth rate since the 1980s. This turned into something of a boom during the so-called Celtic Tiger years. According to this article, the rate is still rising, albeit at a slower pace, despite the economic downturn.
 
Dale_M said:
While LifeSite has a reputation for slanting its stories to fit its editorial point of view,
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Like the president ‘ignoring the executive order’.
Dale_M said:
… I don’t see any such bias in this particular article, which seems a straightforward reporting of statistics.
Click to expand...
You know what it means? We’ll have to up immigration or at least grant amnesty!
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Yes, it does. Like the president ‘ignoring the executive order’.

You know what it means? We’ll have to up immigration or at least grant amnesty!
Click to expand...
Except many legals and illegals are going back to their home countries because of the economy here
 
A birth rate below replacement level is bad news for Social Security and for Medicare. It means a declining population of working taxpayers, an increasing population of elderly Medicare and Social Security recipients, and a stagnating economy.
 
csuliman said:
considering the massive amount of resources consumed by humans, I think a reduced birth rate is a good thing.
Click to expand...
And who, or what, other than humans, do you think should consume those resources?
 
JimG said:
A birth rate below replacement level is bad news for Social Security and for Medicare. It means a declining population of working taxpayers, an increasing population of elderly Medicare and Social Security recipients, and a stagnating economy.
Click to expand...
I’ll be attacked for saying this, but in my opinion this country is underpopulated. Very much so.

In my own little “micro economic zone” of about 50 miles by about 150 miles, there are a million people. Surrounding it on all sides are miles and miles and miles of country just like it where you hardly see any cows, let alone human beings, and it’s good land, with good highways, plentiful water. You name it. But no people. Anything shipped in or out of here has to go a long, long way to other population centers. The next nearest one is about 3 hours away, driving briskly and never stopping. Lack of population is one of the reasons transportation (and thus energy) usage in this country is so high. It takes a lot of hauling to get people and goods to all the places they need to go.

I recall reading, some years ago, that if the tax deduction for children was (adjusted for inflation) what it was during Truman’s time, it would be $20,000 for each child. Of course now that the government absorbs more and more and more of peoples’ productive capacities, and promises more still, it’s pretty disuasive to people to have children.

We’ll pay the price, for sure, and very soon.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’ll be attacked for saying this, but in my opinion this country is underpopulated. Very much so.

In my own little “micro economic zone” of about 50 miles by about 150 miles, there are a million people. Surrounding it on all sides are miles and miles and miles of country just like it where you hardly see any cows, let alone human beings, and it’s good land, with good highways, plentiful water. You name it. But no people. Anything shipped in or out of here has to go a long, long way to other population centers. The next nearest one is about 3 hours away, driving briskly and never stopping. Lack of population is one of the reasons transportation (and thus energy) usage in this country is so high. It takes a lot of hauling to get people and goods to all the places they need to go.

I recall reading, some years ago, that if the tax deduction for children was (adjusted for inflation) what it was during Truman’s time, it would be $20,000 for each child. Of course now that the government absorbs more and more and more of peoples’ productive capacities, and promises more still, it’s pretty disuasive to people to have children.

We’ll pay the price, for sure, and very soon.
Click to expand...
I, for one, do not disagree. The problem, it seems, is not the available land, but what work might be available in those areas to support the families that might move there.
 
If wealth is seen as an oven that bakes pies, then jobs will never be a huge issue. More people just means more opportunity to sell more pies, and more people employed on the vast merry-go-round.

When wealth is seen as a pie that already exists and must be distributed, then indeed there is a problem with population. And it will be a problem that self-perpetuates as the population ages and there are less people to create the pie in the first place.

Resources have always been feared to be scarce, but like the millenium bug, and heterosexual AIDS and global warming and so many other fears, these fears seldom succeed in materializing in the real world.
 
One way to solve the problem of overpopulation is the most awesome way:

Space colonization, ftw!
 
Oh, and the good news for married Catholic guys means they are going to have to start “working overtime”. 😃
 
Darryl1958 said:
If wealth is seen as an oven that bakes pies, then jobs will never be a huge issue. More people just means more opportunity to sell more pies, and more people employed on the vast merry-go-round.

When wealth is seen as a pie that already exists and must be distributed, then indeed there is a problem with population. And it will be a problem that self-perpetuates as the population ages and there are less people to create the pie in the first place.

Resources have always been feared to be scarce, but like the millenium bug, and heterosexual AIDS and global warming and so many other fears, these fears seldom succeed in materializing in the real world.
Click to expand...
Actually, jobs are a huge issue right now. Again I ask, how are we going to employ a growing population, when we can’t even employ all of our current citizens? An increasing world population may create some jobs, but it will also create more workers, and with globalization, many of them will be competing directly with U.S. citizens. And technology raises productivity, reducing the need for workers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top