Slashdot Mirror


US Births Dip To 30-Year Low (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The birthrate fell for nearly every group of women of reproductive age in the U.S. in 2017, reflecting a sharp drop that saw the fewest newborns since 1978, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017 -- "down 2 percent from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years," the CDC said. The general fertility rate sank to a record low of 60.2 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 -- a 3 percent drop from 2016, the CDC said in its tally of provisional data for the year. The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate -- the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers. "The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971," according to the report from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "The decline in the rate from 2016 to 2017 was the largest single-year decline since 2010," the CDC said. The 2017 numbers also represent a 10-year fall from 2007, when the U.S. finally broke its post-World War baby boom record, with more than 4.3 million births.

6 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Knocked up teenage sluts by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    It depends strongly on the state. In Kentucky, the minimum age was effectively raised to 16. Marriage below that age is not explicitly forbidden, but requires a judge's consent.

    http://www.wdrb.com/story/3765...

  2. Re:Want us to have kids by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Informative

    It very much is about money, if you read the article you would see that the biggest drops are in women 30 years of age, women(and their partners) who are facing crippling student debt, housing costs, and health care costs. Costs are certainly one of the reasons women aren't having as many children.

  3. Re:Having Children is Expensive nowadays by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want to send the kid to college to be a part of the future, else you're all but assuring them knee-capped employment possibilities. There's a higher expectation overall for parenting, especially for middle income Americans that plan this out. Uneducated folk in the lower income brackets however will still reproduce irresponsibly though.

    Why college? Send them to trade school to become a welder, electrician, AMT, etc. With enough time in and skill, any of those jobs can lead to six-figure incomes without the debt load of a 4 year degree. This is an especially attractive option for children who have natural intelligence but are more mechanically inclined or like to tinker/build things as opposed to being book smart. Not everyone is built for college.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. Re: Feminism at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, definitely millions of violent, religious, uneducated invaders is exactly what we need to solve all our problems! Just look at how that's working for Europe! Mass sex assaults, mass murders, terrorized citizens, and antisemitism not seen since the Nazis!

  5. Re:Want us to have kids by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are opportunity costs for not maintaining your career, too, unfortunately.

  6. Re:Feminism at work by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

    How do you know "cohabitation rate in Quebec is very high"? I was never able to find any statistics on this

    Really? You must not have looked hard.

    https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl...