Why Americans Aren’t Having Babies—and How It Hurts Us

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Why Americans Aren’t Having Babies—and How It Hurts Us

Americans aren’t having babies, and the economy’s to blame.
After all, who has enough cash to save up for food, clothing, college for another human being? Due to the recent recession, the fertility rate has fallen to its lowest point in 25 years.
The fertility rate is measured as the average number of children per woman, and right now the American rate is down to 1.87 children per woman. This number represents a sharp decrease of 12% since 2007.
Kids are expensive (obviously), so when the economy is shaky, it makes sense for individuals to reevaluate whether they can really afford to have their first child, or add a second child to their family. But while this thinking is prudent on a personal finance level, this trend is potentially dangerous for the economy as a whole.
We’ll break down what lower fertility could mean for the economy … and how this trend could potentially improve motherhood in the United States.

Read more: foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/03/why-americans-arent-having-babiesand-how-it-hurts-us/#ixzz239U9MIYh
 
I’ll only note that the birth rate has been on the decline for quite some time. Part of it began with the Pill, part of it began with the large-scale entry of women into the workforce, and even more so into positions that required a University education. This is because the more time a woman spends in education or in working, the higher she is paid and the more of an opportunity cost is presented by a large family.

Opportunity cost here means what the family has to sacrifice in order to have another child - for us it was my wife’s job because she brought home only about $200/month more than child care, but we had hoped for her to be able to stay home while the children were small. This is why only-children are far more common, and few families go beyond two children, which is often the point where an additional child means dropping to a single income.

I understand the difficulty of the decision. If having a child potentially means giving up a $60,000/year job that you spent 5 years learning to do between undergrad and graduate school, and racked up $50,000 in debt, that’s not an easy choice. So families tend to get started later, marriages tend to be delayed, fewer children are born.

But you were going to approach economic problems next, please do.
 
I saw a calculation that said America lost over 30 Trillion dollars of economic opportunity die to killing our children.
 
It’s rare when an article says that. Still, they aren’t taking it to the next level. Contraception in general, and the mandate for insurance plans to cover 100% of contraceptive costs in particular, is a direct attack on the country’s future tax base.
 
Don’t worry chaps - salvation is at hand. All you need is a large muslim population, breeding at a minimum rate of 4 children per couple…
 
philial said:
Don’t worry chaps - salvation is at hand. All you need is a large muslim population, breeding at a minimum rate of 4 children per couple…
Click to expand...
By 2050 we will all be enjoying sharia law…😦
 
Our hope is that as Muslims assimilate into the various western countries, they follow a similar path of downward fertility. Of course it won’t always come from the women getting more educated and taking commensurate jobs, since many will not get educated. But there is a tendency for generational downward fertility once they are no longer immigrants.
 
Russia has come to realize that population decline is a formidable problem and have taken steps to counteract it. There is an interesting article (actually, quite a few) about it on LifeSiteNews, such as: lifesitenews.com/news/a-dying-nation-must-see-video-lifts-veil-on-russias-abortion-crisis/

(The article mentions a $9000 bonus, but I believe that’s up to $10000 now. I believe there are other countries that have bonuses, as well.)

If I recall correctly, the world’s population is going to start declining in 75 years or so. We’ll be sure to witness situations like England and the Netherlands worldwide (large-scale euthanasia of elderly - i.e. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html)

As for Sharia law: there are fears of that. It’s referred to as “Dhimmitude” by some people (though not considered “politically correct”).

-Byrnwiga
 
Byrnwiga said:
Russia has come to realize that population decline is a formidable problem and have taken steps to counteract it. There is an interesting article (actually, quite a few) about it on LifeSiteNews, such as: lifesitenews.com/news/a-dying-nation-must-see-video-lifts-veil-on-russias-abortion-crisis/

(The article mentions a $9000 bonus, but I believe that’s up to $10000 now. I believe there are other countries that have bonuses, as well.)

If I recall correctly, the world’s population is going to start declining in 75 years or so. We’ll be sure to witness situations like England and the Netherlands worldwide (large-scale euthanasia of elderly - i.e. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html)

As for Sharia law: there are fears of that. It’s referred to as “Dhimmitude” by some people (though not considered “politically correct”).

-Byrnwiga
Click to expand...
China who has a one child policy is changing it to two.
 
losh14 said:
I’ll only note that the birth rate has been on the decline for quite some time. Part of it began with the Pill, part of it began with the large-scale entry of women into the workforce, and even more so into positions that required a University education. This is because the more time a woman spends in education or in working, the higher she is paid and the more of an opportunity cost is presented by a large family.

Opportunity cost here means what the family has to sacrifice in order to have another child - for us it was my wife’s job because she brought home only about $200/month more than child care, but we had hoped for her to be able to stay home while the children were small. This is why only-children are far more common, and few families go beyond two children, which is often the point where an additional child means dropping to a single income.

I understand the difficulty of the decision. If having a child potentially means giving up a $60,000/year job that you spent 5 years learning to do between undergrad and graduate school, and racked up $50,000 in debt, that’s not an easy choice. So families tend to get started later, marriages tend to be delayed, fewer children are born.
Click to expand...
But this isn’t all of it. Women who pursue careers defer pregnancy and often defer marriage. Female fertility declines rapidly even after age 30. So does the marriage rate of females.

Men also defer marriage now more than previously, but they remain fertile long after age 30 and their marriage rate does not decline particularly. So there is a mismatch between marriage and the fertility of both genders.
 
buffalo said:
China who has a one child policy is changing it to two.
Click to expand...
Right, because the population trajectory is a disaster waiting to happen. It isn’t a completely new revelation, since China has had a two child policy for rural areas (farming, mostly). I think there could be a downside of more abortions, though (especially of female children).

-Byrnwiga
 
As a mother of 7, I will add my two cents here. The reason many couples only have one or two children is that they want to provide everything for themselves and their children. Look at all the c**p kids have nowadays. Look at all the activities they “HAVE” to participate in. Look at the homes in neighborhoods all over the country and see the boats, RVs, 2-3 cars and a pick-up not even mentioning the size of the homes for those 2 children. (Did they really need 6 bedrooms??? We could have!) How can I say “all over the country”? We moved 17 times in the first 25 years we were married and we went house hunting - a lot - and we saw the excesses and such everywhere. When we lived in the San Diego area, my husband wanted us to live in a nicer area than we did, but I told him no way! Our kids wouldn’t have the clothes, toys, cars, etc. that the other kids had, and it would be a serious blow to our family life - besides, I would have had to work full-time and that would have had even worse consequences. Our family, now grown, remains a tightly knit, albeit scattered group who reach out and help one another in a variety of ways. We love and care about each other. That was my personal goal for my children. I am blessed.
 
Retrogal said:
As a mother of 7, I will add my two cents here. The reason many couples only have one or two children is that they want to provide everything for themselves and their children. Look at all the c**p kids have nowadays. Look at all the activities they “HAVE” to participate in. Look at the homes in neighborhoods all over the country and see the boats, RVs, 2-3 cars and a pick-up not even mentioning the size of the homes for those 2 children. (Did they really need 6 bedrooms??? We could have!) How can I say “all over the country”? We moved 17 times in the first 25 years we were married and we went house hunting - a lot - and we saw the excesses and such everywhere. When we lived in the San Diego area, my husband wanted us to live in a nicer area than we did, but I told him no way! Our kids wouldn’t have the clothes, toys, cars, etc. that the other kids had, and it would be a serious blow to our family life - besides, I would have had to work full-time and that would have had even worse consequences. Our family, now grown, remains a tightly knit, albeit scattered group who reach out and help one another in a variety of ways. We love and care about each other. That was my personal goal for my children. I am blessed.
Click to expand...
Nice story. It takes guts nowadays.

Selfishness and material goods are indeed the problem. Many youngsters need to hear stories like yours.
 
Byrnwiga said:
Right, because the population trajectory is a disaster waiting to happen. It isn’t a completely new revelation, since China has had a two child policy for rural areas (farming, mostly). I think there could be a downside of more abortions, though (especially of female children).

-Byrnwiga
Click to expand...
That is almost funny, but I won’t laugh this time. All America does is open the immigration gates a little wider. And abortion - there’s an easy fix.

“In 1920, Russia became the first country in the world to allow abortion in all circumstances…”

“In 1936, the Soviet Union made abortion illegal…” Stalin was concerned about population growth. Everyone knew Germany was rearming.

Peace,
Ed
 
SonCatcher said:
It’s rare when an article says that. Still, they aren’t taking it to the next level. Contraception in general, and the mandate for insurance plans to cover 100% of contraceptive costs in particular, is a direct attack on the country’s future tax base.
Click to expand...
I am sure that unwanted children are a great way to invest in our future. There is no way that an unwanted child likely born out of wedlock would not be an upstanding citizen.
 
buffalo said:
Nice story. It takes guts nowadays.

Selfishness and material goods are indeed the problem. Many youngsters need to hear stories like yours.
Click to expand...
Give me a BREAK. I just had my second child and I am pretty content. I have a boy and a girl. In no way is it selfish for me to not have more kids because I want to provide for my family financially.
 
interestedman said:
I am sure that unwanted children are a great way to invest in our future. There is no way that an unwanted child likely born out of wedlock would not be an upstanding citizen.
Click to expand...
But that child likely IS wanted. Maybe not by his birth mother, but there are childless couples all over America who want that child very, very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top