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.
I, for one, welcome our new sexless, soulless, joyless Feminist overlords.
pay us. Births are dropping because Americans are becoming less religious (so no opposition to birth control, not even the token opposition you get from most Catholics).
To be honest the solution right now isn't to pay us more, it's to bring in more labor from overseas. It's hard to argue with that since it's working. It just sucks if you're a member of the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
I don't read AC
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...
Wellcome to 2008!
BTW, the original article has been edited to correct the date yo 1987.
In developed countries we've seen the birth rate decline over the last several decades. I suggest that young people are reacting to negative conditions for having kids, by having less kids. Student debt, declining real wages, the rising cost of housing, expensive medical insurance, politics, religion shown to be empty, cultural Marxism; all are perceived by the primitive layers of our brains as the kind of resource scarcity and adverse social conditions that make having kids unwise.
That even today's relatively poor people have more goods and better health care than the rich did a hundred years ago is irrelevant: the reptile layers of our brain translate our collective worry and disconnection into less offspring.
This is positive news, because the birth rate should rise if conditions improve. I ascribe the declining prosperity of recent decades to declining energy returned for energy invested in the extraction of fossil fuels, an effect ameliorated somewhat by automation's productivity increases. Things will continue to get worse until the exponential increase in cheap solar and wind energy overwhelms the decrease in the value of fossil energy; which should happen in the next few years. Once this happens, everyone will start getting wealthier fast, as increasing energy and automation will improve people's lifestyles in tandem.
Cheapening energy means financial security for the young, which leads to affordable housing, health care, food security, reduced conflict and increased social cohesion. Under these conditions, the birth rate will rise.
// DevsVult: The Machines Will It
Are there more people in the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany, etc than there were 100 years ago?
Yep.
After this population decline will there still be more people?
Yep.
Was the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany under populated 100 years ago?
Nope.
so... Problem?
Constantly we get "because there are too many people the EARTH is going to die"... then we get this stupid shit with "Because there are fewer babies freak out."
Which is it? Seems like the newsies just want to turn anything into a story. Numbers go up and the world will eat itself to death... numbers go down and the world will empty of all people.
Both narratives are stupid.
There is no under population or over population issue in the industrialized Western world. We have HOUSING shortages... stressed schools... stressed water and power infrastructure. So... under population? Not really possible.
The story out of Japan is that they have a big problem with low birth rate. Have you seen Japan? Does it "look" under populated? And here you might say "but in 30 years it will be"... no it won't. The trend would have to continue for several generations to actually cause a problem. And whilst it is fun to just take a trend line from a statistic and project it out 500 years a projected statistic gets increasingly less reliable the farther you project it.
Populations are going to go up and down in the future as our societies, our economies, our cultures change.
I mean, who wants to be packed into a coffin apartment in Mega City 1? I don't. Fuck that noise. I want a lawn and a dog. I want a garden where I can putter around in my old age growing tomatoes or something just for fun. If you want to die in a tiny apartment, that's great. Everyone should have what they want. But I think a lot of people want a little space.
I want to spread out a bit. Big concentrations of population have all sorts of statistical problems. The worst schools, the worst crime, the worst corruption, the least political agency, the highest stress... there are reasons to not want it. There are also good things. The best hospitals, the best schools, the most economic opportunities, wonderful museums, concerts, plays, wonderful shops, etc.
Just let what is going to happen happen.
We have a lot of stuff that has changed in our society. The entry of women into pretty much every profession. The changing notion of when you have a family. The changing notion of what it means to be married in the first place. All of that. How could it not have an impact on birth rates? Of course it will.
And this is just going to play out. Probably the most aggressive career seeking women that spend the least energy on trying to get a family will statistically have fewer children. That will play out in time in the population. With the cultural tropes that push that below replacement rate becoming less and less common such that AT LEAST there is replacement. Who thinks that when we made all those changes we got everything 100% right? Of course we didn't. This is an experiment.
We'll see what happens. But there's no population problem up or down in the modern industrialized West. We're fine. And that's before even talking about immigration which is its own little shit show.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"Future societies will most likely pay women to be mothers."
Interesting. So you believe in the future we will return to the traditional working father and stay at home mother model of parenthood. Personally I'd bet more on Confucian extended family model - but who knows!
There isn't much proof that intelligence has a racial component. Remember, all of the things being said about current immigrants were also said about Italians, East Europeans, Irish, etc, etc in the 1800s and 1900s. OMG, "those people" are ruining American kultshah.
> The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate -- the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers. ...and yet the US population is still rising year on year.
http://www.multpl.com/united-s...
Its not about money with me, maybe I'm pessimistic, but I am ashamed of what society has become, what my generation has failed to do to improve the global community and the lack of political will to correct the wrongs of our generation. While I'd love that kid and strive to do the very best for him, every single day I look at him I would ask him to forgive me for bringing him into this world. I think the responsible, conscious adult chooses not to have a child for many reasons, and I think economics probably is a big factor, but for me it's my child's future and what his generation will be left to face.
I think the more modern a country is, the more the citizens are connected and the more messaging they are subject to and influenced by. We are inundated every day with hate, disaster, climate calamity, politics, etc. Someone living in a place disconnected from global affairs will have an entirely different outlook on the future - their world won't know about the big trash area in the pacific, or the growing CO2 issue, or trashing the rain forests, war in Afghanistan, nuke bombs in north korea, NAFTA, gas prices, how you need crippling debt to afford a quality education that everyone must get etc.etc.. It'd be interesting to know what the birthrate in rural america is vs. urban america.
What responsible human being would subject an innocent child to the dystopian world we're living in today?
The US is going through some big structural/societal changes. It's not some, "I don't want to bring a child into this horrible world" thing -- it's the fact that more people have choices or feel they have choices than they did in the past.
- Fewer women are voluntarily deciding to spend their entire work life raising children. They are better educated overall and the workforce is more open to them. When you go this route, you just can't in good conscience have a huge number of kids because something has to give between work and family. Most good parents I know would rather err on the side of family, but they also know they have a responsibility to work.
- People are less religious: I grew up in a very Catholic area of the city, and I'm not shocked that so many priests and bishops got away with crimes against kids. Back in the day, priests were likely the only people in the neighborhood who went to college, and many people felt they were the representative of God and the Pope, and totally beyond question. Birth control is not allowed in Catholic doctrine and Catholic families used to be HUGE as a result. I know people who have 9 siblings...and I think a lot of it is due to people adhering strictly to their religion's rules.
- Women as a whole aren't just looking to find a husband and take the first situation that comes their way, so they're starting to have kids later in life. And even if they do get married early on, they're way more likely to delay having kids until they're more financially secure.
The interesting thing is whether the expected replacement rate is still too high. We need fewer people, not less, if we want to keep the whole employment cycle going. The thing that will probably keep this from becoming a catastrophe is the US' diversity. For every hard-charging single-by-choice female executive that's 110% dedicated to their career, there's a traditional, religious woman who gets married when they're 21 and has a kid every 2 years until they're 35. This is different in places like Japan where they have almost no immigration and a very homogeneous society...in their case the birth rate is too low and they're going to have to have some huge shifts in the next few decades to deal with it.
We have 2 kids, we both work and that's way more than enough for us. We've done our evolutionary duty IMO and would rather concentrate on turning the kids into people who will contribute something to society. You can't do that when your attention is spread between 2 jobs, your living situation and 5 kids.
I guess I'm an old-timer at 42, but I work in a place that skews older. Because it's IT (yes, seriously,) we have lots of men who are divorced or on their 2nd/3rd wife. I think the MGTOW thing is mainly because so many of them got taken to the cleaners by their wives' divorce attorneys. And, I think a lot of them just picked the best-looking woman they could find with zero regard to long-term compatibility. So, they're telling everyone who will listen that all women are manipulative fill-in-the-blanks who do nothing but take all your money. Some are, and I've heard lots of examples that make me shake my head...but it's not a universal truth like they'd have you believe.
It sounds incredibly corny, but I got very lucky in the spouse department. What does the MGTOW crowd think is going to happen if they marry someone who is rock-stupid, has nothing in common with them, and is often equally unhappy about their situation? My wife is very smart, independent and there's nothing keeping her trapped in our relationship; she could kick me out at any time and be just fine. My opinion is that you shouldn't get married "just because" --because you'll just end up divorced and bitter in the end.