It’s better for the economy to import people than birth them here because you can limit immigration to skilled, working aged people and save the cost of providing 20 years of education as well as the expense of a mother out of the workforce for periods of birth and child raising. You can also screen immigrants for conditions that would prevent them from become gainfully employed, but you can’t do that for babies. Less than 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States so we can search the world and curate a far better workforce than relying on the luck of the draw for babies born here.
12
It's quite clear what the problem is: Smart people are concerned that with declining wages and rising rents, this country will soon be split between the rich and the working class. Sadly, it is most likely the working class who are continuing to have children, while the educated (middle) class has cut back.
Good for the environment, of course, but another sign of a nation in decline.
18
How about the simplest explanation? More and more people are waking up to the fact that there are WWWWAAAAAYYYYY too many humans on this planet, and that adding more is bad ju-ju?
Also, having kids is a PIA, costly, and takes away from time you can spend doing things you want to do, while society has changed to the point that having kids is not in the least bit necessary.
29
This is how it works folks!
When the Divorce Rate is at least 50%+...(and 70% of those are initiated by the wife)....and Family Courts around the West are hostile to Men.
When the MSM promotes the image of Fathers being stupid and hopeless....and all Men in general being "Potential Rapists" and abusers.
The question becomes: Why on earth would any Men get married and have kids? What's in it for us?
No thanks!
I'll just sit back with a single malt and watch it all burn to cinders...bicycle, fish and all!
15
Who in their right mind would want to raise a child in a failed country?
31
Just the thought of bringing a new baby into Trumplandia is the best birth control ever.
33
Good, the planet thanks you.
22
yesssssssss. The Matrix said it All: Humans are a virus. Thank you for not breeding.
20
In the era of Trump, who has any real inclination for sex and bringing another baby into the world?
11
This is great news. Now, if we can get Africa and South America to put the brakes on their baby factories, we might be able to finally put a dent the human population surplus.
18
There is no point in bringing children into a world on the verge of collapse.
20
Maybe life in America in 2018 just isn't worth living. Why subject someone to it?
17
Note to the masses from the World Oligarchs - you can stop reproducing and die off now. We own and control nearly everything. We’ll need a few of you to hang around and do things for us. But machines and computers will do most of that from here out.
We have created the conditions that make you not want to bring children into this world we have all but destroyed. And we support your decision.
18
The human population remained steady, at under one billion, for tens of thousands of years. Over the past 200 years, we've swelled to 7.5 billion, leading to poverty, hunter, suffering, climate change will will lead to civil wars as people flee to higher ground, increased CO2 thinning the ozone layer, pollution, death of ocean life, animal extinction.
And you lament that the US fertility rate is falling? Open your eyes and think globally. Get birth control to women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia so the apex predator-human population will fall to a manageable 1.5-2 billion. We are in a sixth extinction event, for gosh sakes.
40
Possibly a biological contributing cause? See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-sperm/sperm-count-falling-shar... Related peer-reviewed article is Levine, Hagai, Niels Jørgensen, Anderson Martino-Andrade, Jaime Mendiola, Dan Weksler-Derri, Irina Mindlis, Rachel Pinotti, and Shanna H. Swan. "Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis." Human reproduction update 23, no. 6 (2017): 646-659.
4
90% cannot afford children and the 10% don't have to propagate because they plan to to live forever.
13
What about the policies that make it harder for working women to afford having and raising children in the first place? Without paid family and medical leave, affordable and high-quality childcare, flexible work options, equal pay, and more, the disincentives and difficulties for almost all women in the workforce are piling up and piling on. It's not about "focusing on a career," it's about the fact that our workplace policies don't let women focus on their careers while also having a family.
47
It's fascinating how almost all of the comments on this piece are from women, and about primarily women's issues, like the cost of childcare. None of these women even mention fathers, or write about the role they have in this decision, which sort of neatly illustrates the real problem. Men are realizing that getting married and having children isn't worth the risk. 50% of marriages fail, and 85% of the time, divorce is initiated by women. Starting a family is playing Russian roulette with your whole life if you're male. Ladies, you're now reaping what you've sown. Have fun.
9
Every female friend I know in my age demo (30s) has had to beg, cajole or trick (AKA compromise a condom or two) to get her husband or boyfriend to have a child with them. Seems, in addition to women holding off, the men in our lives (and big cities) aren't too keen to "settle down" and don the role of Dad either. Takes two to tango on this one.
14
It’s too bad that it often takes having children to realize what a mistake prioritizing your career over having children would be.
Work seems important, but for most people, it doesn’t matter. No one cares. You’re not going to change the world. You’re a cog. When you leave your job, folks forget about you.
Having a family creates a small world inside of the big one we live in, where you CAN really matter for the rest of your days.
19
Am I the only one who finds the use of “fertility rate” rather than “birth rate” confusing? Nobody knows how “fertile” couples who choose not to have children are.
Are there corresponding surveys about marriage or “coupling” rates? I think they would also find a trend of young adults putting off marriage. Isn’t there a current stereotype of the millennial moving home to his or her parent? If there is anything to this, I don’t think this kind of millennial is thinking about having kids.
I suspect that we will continue to see declines in birth rates unless something is done about student debt, child care costs, and until family leave is improved. And of course, there’s this opinion piece from yesterday:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/opinion/workplace-discrimination-moth...
The days of stay at home moms are over and the workplace has to catch up to this reality.
24
One , humans are a nuisance to the planet. Two, many intelligent women think they can do better things with their time and money like travel, read, be mentors. Why waste so much energy and money on raising kids, when they know that kids will not be around to take care of them anyway. Its a life circle we have learnt to accept until our death.
14
What is driving this? My two cents - why would people have many children in this country if the good quality daycares are incredibly pricey, college tuition not in par with most of the populace's spending power and companies expect you to work like a crazy madperson?? Not to mention the stress of not guaranteed healthcare.
10
As an AP Environmental Science Teacher I ask my students to engage with ideas related to environmental science and the social issues related to them. This is just a wondering but does the amount of really bad news about the environment and where we are heading impact on young women's choices as to bring children into this world or not? Perhaps there are studies out there about this topic?
6
The great news here is that more women are in control of their own fertility; that is not a problem to be solved. The problem to be solved is the fact that a capitalist, consumerist economy demands an ever-increasing population, something the planet cannot sustain forever.
What we need to find are ways to adjust our economy so that it can remain vital with a stable or shrinking population.
23
Have you given thought to the possibility that young women may not want to bring children into this world with unmitigated climate change occurring? And no one, least of all Trump, trying to effectively stop it?
11
A decline in the number of births is probably a good trend -- for the environment, for the families involved and maybe for society as a whole. That is IF the decline signals that people are having fewer children per family. It could mean that women and men are having as many children as they can handle -- financially and emotionally. (Don't get me wrong -- being the third of four children, I'm glad my parents didn't stop at two. That said, I myself birthed only two.)
It's good if we have fewer overwhelmed parents and dysfunctional families. But fewer parents in a population is probably not a good thing. Parenthood foists on you an increased concern for the future that you probably couldn't have predicted before experiencing the amazing flow of love that a baby (who looks like you and the person you love!) can elicit. Grandparenthood simply increases that concern for the future. (Ask me how I know).
49
Well jobs are up but half of American families have some level of financial insecurity tied to not being able to pay for middle-class basics. Who can afford kids these days with no paid parental leave, expensive childcare, housing costs outpacing inflation and depressed wages? We don't have strong family networks to support child raising like other countrie's nor do we have the strong social policies to support a middleclass
11
Much of the reasons are quite simple.
Crushing student loans ensure that many college graduates have little to no money to put aside. Having a child when one is so in the hole isn't a smart move.
Solution: Subsidize college educations and trade school educations heavily. Expand county college and make attending completely free (same for worker retraining.)
Women suffering a heavy penalty for having a children. With that many women will put off, chose not to have children, or only have one.
Solution: Do away with that mommy penalty, offer free childcare, paid sick days, and larger child tax credits. Also close and eliminate the wage gap.
The economy is only booming for Wall Street. Low unemployment but the jobs are part time, low paying, dead end, insecure or combinations of the previous.
Solution: Raise the minimum wage, do away with the employee tax, universal health care, penalize companies that are on the dole as the tax payers pay for their employees healthcare, SNAP, and more. Also raise taxes on the wealthy, close corporate loopholes, heavily tax capital gains over say $50k.
Then younger women and men will be able to have children if they so wish.
17
One reason the fertility rate is down is because of the difficulty in having children within the work framework of essentially no long term time off with support for expectant and birthing mothers that we have in this country.
8
Given the rate at which Americans consume pretty much everything, an actual sustainable population number for the US is *maybe* 250 million. If everyone in the world consumed like Americans, it would take the productivity of FIVE earths to sustain that. We'd have to reduce our consumption of stuff by about 80% to become truly sustainable. Right now, 'sustainable' is just another term that advertisers like to use in greenwashing ad campaigns, like 'natural' and 'gluten-free'.
So basically, this is good news. Economists and politicians are fro the most part incapable of seeing it like that, but it's true. By scaring people out of having children, and going after immigration, Trump may actually do the environment some good, despite Scott Pruitt's efforts to the contrary.
17
As a 34 year old woman who has this conversation daily, this is by no means shocking...
-Look at the average student loan debt after University / grad/ doctoral programs
-Look at the paid maternity leave polices or rather COMPLETE LACK thereof in the USA
-Look at availability (or lack thereof) of daycare for children
-Then, Look at the cost of that daycare compared to the earnings of women at the job
-Look at the cost of healthcare plus the cost of giving a healthy birth ($40,000 plus)
-Look at the rates women move up in their careers when they cannot work overtime / have a family at home
-Look how pregnancy is labeled by Our Own government as a “disability”
-Look at the unrealistic expectations of women to be able to work 50 hours, raise a family, be loving and sexy wife, etc.
-Look at infertility rates and how much fertility treatments cost
-Look at the rates of women who die in and around birth in the USA (even with 3rd world countries)
-Look at the world we are bringing our children into - environmental degradation, the competitiveness of schools, isolation, role models like Our president (sarcasm intended) etc.
The list goes on...
38
Is declining fertility due to increasing income inequality? The few super wealthy can only have a limited number of children and the many newly lower-middle class can't afford to have many. Interesting question because this is the first time ever that reliable birth control has been available during a period of extreme income inequality.
7
As far as I understand the word, “fertility” refers to the ability to conceive children, but the article is referring to a birth rate (e.g. births/thousand women). Declining fertility is very different than declining birth rates.
7
Hello there, one of the "women in her 30s" not fulfilling her maternal obligation to procreate, here.
Have you considered perhaps that the "men in their 30s" aren't exactly lining up to settle down and procreate with us?
I am surrounded by countless intelligent, beautiful, accomplished, nurturing women who can barely get a guy to commit to a second date, let alone commit to marriage and children.
Might be worth taking a look at the other half of the equation required to boost the fertility rate?
217
It's economics, plain and simple. Wages are stagnant and cost of living has skyrocketed. My boyfriend is a software engineer, I have a mid-level director job, and it is hard to save even for retirement. Housing that is actually affordable requires a 3+ hour commute. A family feels like a distant dream.
And we're the lucky ones.
16
Should I point out that student loan debt from rising tuition and the fertility rate are also inversely correlated very strongly? I mean, come on, maybe some causation there too!
10
Many people can't afford to have children. For all of the talk about our economy having so little unemployment, what is often not said is that salaries are not going up. People can't afford to buy houses. People cannot afford to pay for college. People cannot afford to retire. Not being able to afford having children is just another symptom of a country whose priorities are totally mixed up and whose leaders do not know how to lead.
19
This is a very interesting article. Some of the declines in birth rates are good and some are not. I fully understand the value of settling into a career and putting off children, but there is also the gamble that you will find the right mate. Children are a huge commitment, financially, emotionally and physically. I know working moms and stay-at-home moms. I don't think one is better than the other except the stay-at-home mom really loses out on having a career. I'm a little critical about careers and I cannot say establishing yourself in real estate is necessarily a career that I would give up having children for. As women wait, they also risk changes to their bodies and the potential difficulty of having children. I know families that live on a one very lucrative salary while others desperately need two incomes. I have a sort of shocked reaction that immigrants are making up for the balance. At that rate, we might as well say goodbye to the English language. Do we have a moral responsibility to keep the birthrate up?
4
I think consideration to increased infertility should be considered, as well as unintentional losses may be an unrecognized factor. Finally, I would ponder nutrition which contributes to fertility to be a factor. Infertility is correlated to poor nutrition and obesity. Both of these factors are tied to economic status.
2
Chilren are expensive. The average one growing up in an America that offers little support for families has already experienced a sub par education system, in a largely unsupportive low wage community economy, with bad or non existent
public transportation and crumbling infrastructure, and has no hope of being able to afford a university education, without incurring life long debt in a job market that no longer provides a secure and modestly satisfying occupation.
Already feeling insecure, there are few reasons for the majority of Americans to even have children.
That Great American Myth that kept everyone motivated and focused on dreams of personal success, “ Anyone can grow up to become President” has recently heightened the overall insecurity.
8
As I read the complaint of those who are clearly well-off, I hope they remember the less-fortunate when they go to the polls.
5
Demographics is an excuse. 7 billion people is a death sentence for the earth's ecosystems. Stop having children.
33
Of all the issues causing people to not want to bring children into this world, I think the climate crisis, low wages and the GOP's war on women, children and minorities play the biggest part. We have a house full of old white men who want nothing more than to cut women's healthcare, maternal care, maternity leave, family leave etc to the bone. They are hostile to women. The Democrat lawmakers are by no means perfect but at the very least their policies aren't cruel and hateful to minorities.
24
Things are so expensive that both parents usually need to work, and our government is hostile to families. We will never, ever have any legislation passed that will help mothers give birth and families raise children as long as their are republicans in charge.
We are so backwards compared to other countries.
18
As a white person, I am devastated by my people's low birth rate. Each separate and distinct ethnic racial group is naturally, understandably impacted by this critical information. I can only assume other (peoples) are similarly interested in their respective birth rates. Nothing less should be expected from those respecting the critical need to retain the separate people we have always been, will hopefully always remain. It is imperative such separate diversity must be preserved.
3
Really? We are all one human species. That have been more or less intermingling for tens of thousands of years. Descended from the same areas in Africa and the Middle East. Melanin or lack thereof is a factor based on how close various given human tribes were to the equator.
This is not to ignore the reality of various cultural differences and the current organization of the globe into 190 +/- nation-states whose national sovereignty and customs should be respected. However, wondering if this comment was written as a joke or meant sarcastically?
3
If I am correct, half of all pregnancies are still unplanned.
So, with greater access to birth control and education, the birth rate could still drop significantly.
9
This would be a good time to further propagate the myth that the U.S. is experiencing an overpopulation crisis.
1
Having a child is expensive. It cost me $10000 to have a kid. I wanted to have the kid and I could afford it. My wife does not work so she takes care of him. What about others who does not have a stay home mom. Day care is expensive I assume. It is also expensive to give them a good education. I don't understand that politicians don't talk about the expense of bringing up children.
10
The cost of daycare for a newborn can easily top tuition at a private university.
2
so many incomes/benefits have been so successfully beaten down for the benefit of the top earners that many couples can't afford kids or as many kids as in previous times. Nowadays women need to work outside the home to maintain a decent standard of living.
But with human population growth still growing rapidly (over 80 million/year) in an overcrowded planet with disappearing natural areas and wildlife, lower fertility is good news.
15
Perhaps the explanation is as simple as: "Me, me. Me, me."
Children do sooo... get in the way of fun. (Anticipating the responses, please note I am a single dad who raised two kids by himself.)
6
No, it’s not that simple.
I don’t have kids because I don’t currently have a partner and I can’t afford to have them on my own. While you say that it’s all about “me, me, me, me” for people who don’t have or are putting off having children, “you, you, you, you” is missing the point that there are a lot of reasons beyond pure, cussed selfishness that people don’t have kids. Finances, a lack of outside support, serious health conditions, unforgiving jobs, fertility problems, sick partners, disinterested partners, extended family in need of care, and plenty of other things can and do prevent people from having children. The challenges of single parenthood are nothing to toss one’s head at either, but as a single dad I’m sure you know that particular road is neither smooth nor easy.
This isn’t about children getting in the way of the “fun”, and I don’t know too many people living the “fun” these days. Your response is rather holier-than-thou, and I’d wager that if I were someone who’d had kids despite tight finances or a lack of a partner, you’d be first in line to tell me how selfish I was.
17
Per the CIA World Fact Book, estimated fertility per U.S. childbearing age female was 1.87 -- not enough to sustain our current population, for which a birthrate of a minimum of 2.0 is required. Now, add to that that immigration has halted nearly to zero under the Trump regime, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we're going to be in trouble as babyboomers continue to retire and die off and millennials are essentially not having babies, period! Student loan debt, full-time work under the "gig" economy that provides zero benefits and even less "job security" (what a concept heh, job security) and declining sperm quality among American males, not to mention a decline in American males that many women even consider possibilities for "mating" these days -- well, you see what's happened. And I'm not convinced the economy is as "great" as it's been hepped up to be since the so-called "recovery" in 2009!
10
With massive automation on the horizon this is something to celebrate. The simple fact of the matter is that there will not be enough jobs to go around for everyone unless we significantly reduce the number of people.
For those who claim that fewer people will mean less tax for social services there is an easy solution to that problem: tax the robots.
Now what we need to do is focus on reducing immigration, lest the hordes further overwhelm our infrastructure.
Fewer people is also a solution to skyrocketing rents and property values, which are beginning to choke our proletariat (especially our non-white proletariat) to death.
8
Many in the U.S., rightly or wrongly, have come to believe the future is not going to be better than the present. Increasing income inequality, environmental degradation, government failing to even try to improve the welfare of the people as well as the success of a right-wing anti-collectivist ideology that government is evil and needs to be destroyed are just a few of more obvious factors feeding this belief. When people no longer believe things are improving, even slowly, they don't feel right about bringing new people into the world who will have to live in the mess we have created.
15
Who wants children? I'm happy working going to work, coming home and not having to worry about taking care of another human being. Children consume about as much free time as they do money. No thanks.
14
Thank you for not being a parent. It's hard enough for people who like/love it.
6
This report focuses on women but leaves out the other half of the equation: men. There are definite economic and social problems for women in their 20's and 30's. Who can afford to be a single parent? Who wants to have a child without a spouse? Male expectations have changed. Young men are also "too focused" on careers. They enjoy the single life with disposable income for personal wants with the ease of "no commitment" sex thanks to dating apps. The single life is glorified in the media and our public leaders offer poor examples of marital fidelity. In spite of the #MeToo Movement, men still control women's fertility, perhaps even more than ever.
6
This article doesn't take into account a diminished marriage rate, women who choose to be single and child-free, or the rise of dating apps. Seems a bit short-sighted.
5
This is THE most important topic for public discussion and many thanks to the NYT for bringing it up. However, the phenomenon of reduced fertility in crowded animal populations is hardly unknown in biology. The neuro-endocrinology of human population regulation has been worked-out for many years now. George Chrousos at NIH has published extensively on this topic. The recently published "Stress R Us" on Amazon details these and many other related researches. Note the higher infertility rates in large urban centers worldwide, as well as crowded populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Also, crowded animal populations show disruptions of family structure that parallel what we are seeing among humans in lower socio-economic families. Infertility has increased 100% in America over 34 years, from 1982 to 2016: 8% up to 16.7%, in spite of curiously contrary reports from our CDC. Fake news? Just look at the boom in the number of Fertility specialists among medical doctors. Recent reports are sounding the alarm on a 60% fall in sperm counts over a 43 year period! Hagai Levine in Israel is warning of the potential for human extinction! So, what's the cure? Ironically, voluntary one-child families are needed to bring our worldwide overpopulation down to sustainable 1950 levels of 2.5 billion by 2,100. Continued blind population growth at the current rate of 220,000plus per day guarantees Malthus' long ago predicted "misery and vice" decimates our offspring.
11
This may come as a shock to some, but not every woman wants to become a mother
Oh, and if you have a leader that mirrors the way our country treats women, I guess you might not want to expose a kid to that either
19
This is a perfect time to exclude the immigrants who might offset the growing imbalance in our nation's age pyramid (and the social and economic costs that come with it). Those America Firsters who want to experience life in Moldova without actually having to go there or learn a new language are further down that track than they probably imagine.
If we really hustle, we can catch up to South Korea, where some demographers have forecast national "extinction" by the year 3000!
1
Men see very few benefits to contemporary marriage compared to single life. And they are typically slaughtered, financially, in divorce, so why marry when all you see is downside risk.
Women, rationally, see marriage as the best scenario to raise children.
So, scientists who ‘are trying to figure it out’, have I offered enough hints?
Victoria’s spouse
6
The NYT can write a zillion articles about how great the economy is doing ten years after the recession caused by greedy bankers bundling bad mortgages as an investment vehicle. This article puts the kibosh in that notion. There are other reasons for the declining fertility rate of course, but the economy has to be near the top of the list.
In another article about Georgia State University, we read about a woman's journey to get her college degree. Her grades were too poor for her chosen major of accounting, so she switched to criminal justice. (Seriously? How hard is an undergraduate degree in accounting? There's no calculus or geometry involved.) She just graduated, and is working as a part-time manager of a UPS store. Then we're informed that the median salary for a Georgia State graduate at age 34 is $38,900. Good luck raising a family in Atlanta with those numbers. Does her part-time job count in the unemployment statistics, which we're repeatedly told are at historic lows in general, and for African-Americans in particular? The rest of us know better. "Employment" never meant struggling just to pay the bills, with nothing left over for an emergency, or god forbid a real honest vacation. The Very Important People have redefined the definition of basic terms like "unemployment" and "full-time job." They just neglect to mention the lousy pay and non-existent benefits.
As Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy, stupid."
9
Not seeing this as a big problem, at least not yet. That said, why anyone would want to bring a child into the mess we're living in now is beyond me.
10
A lot has changed over the past few generations, basically since the 1960s. Women have more control over their fertility and their lives. While many women in my age group married and had children fairly young, most women now seem to delay both marriage and children.
One reason for a decline in the birth rate is no doubt that the older a woman is when she has her first child, the fewer children she is likely to have.
In my own family, there seems to be evidence for this. All of my nieces, nephews and my son delayed marriage and children until after age 30. Two of my nephews, ages 31 and 33 are not yet married. My niece didn't have a child until age 34, though she wanted one earlier.
I suspect our experience is not unique.
Why does this matter? Much of our society is predicated on birth rate. Younger generations pay into Social Security to support older Americans, for example. Much housing is built to accommodate families, even though many of us are living longer and our children are gone. Single family housing in non-metropolitan areas is more common than multi-family housing.
Japan is having a problem due to its aging population. The NY Times published an article about the issue of being unable to drive in rural Japan just last week. The same issues exist in the U.S. We need to consider what our future society should look like as the birth rate decreases.
4
I'm surprised to see no mention of divorce in this article.
As a child of divorce, I saw my Mom (registered nurse with degree from an English University, no credentials in the US) clean toilets and work overtime as she tried to raise her two young children on a pittance as my Oxford educated father largely shirked financial responsibility.
I remember my Mom sitting at our dining room table in tears as she tried to decide which bills to pay THAT month..and more importantly which bills would go unpaid. Would we have electricity that month? Would we have heat? Would we have adequate food? Many months we had none of those.
At seven years old I learned to cook, clean, do laundry and watch my younger brother.
My Mom would pull me aside..and say, "Sarah make sure that when you grow up that you can take care of yourself."
So I did and I do.
Did I have children? Yes at 38 (after three miscarriages) then 42 (three more miscarriages then IVF).
Sadly my Mom died of 42 of colon cancer, another consequence of being poorly nourished and having inadequate access to healthcare. So she never lived to meet her grandchildren.
I consider myself one of the lucky ones who can have financial self-reliance and children. And frankly it could have gone either way.
So why are so many women waiting? Because they have to.
126
Sorry to hear about that. Divorce isn't the only source of poverty for women with children. Male non-support of their children occurs for a number of reasons. The lack of support from society at large also contributed to your mother's hardships and, ultimately, to her untimely death. Is it any surprise given that the destruction of our social and financial safety net has led to a fear of bringing children into our economically dangerous world?
8
I agree. I have instilled in my two daughters that they should only have the children that they can afford to take care of by themselves. Our society is not kind to those who don't take care of themselves. It's discouraging how little help American Society offers to parents.
22
The 27% rate drop among Hispanic women must be great news for Trump and his racist supporters.They might not even need to make Mexico pay for "The Beautiful Wall." To make things even better for Trump and his White supremacist "very fine people," the rate for blacks dropped about 11%. Enough to send the president and his mob of deplorables dancing in the street.
3
Having a kid means a big reduction in the way couples live, especially those on the cusp between a "really nice" income and a merely "good income". And of course there's not only the money investment but the time investment as well (especially for the mother).
Don't get me wrong: there may come a time in later years where the realization that having a kid trumps everything else in terms of significance "in the grand scheme of things" harshly kicks in. And by then it may be too late.
But explaining that to urbane young people on the up and up in cities with myriad attractions (and purchases/expenses) makes you look like an old fogy.
5
Maybe, but that has not happened in other countries with even lower birthrates. I think it is South Korea that just reached a new all time low, and Japan, Taiwan, and many European countries are not far behind. The US has been below replacement rate for some time, but immigrants have made up the difference.
16
There no longer is social pressure to have children: from churches, parents, or even peers. People are having enjoyable lives childfree and those with children often seem burdened, restricted and poor. Women want Sex and the City, not Cheaper by the Dozen.
9
I think that is one major factor. I recall some of the old TV shows and movies where it was actually a thing for moms to have gatherings just to show off their kids.
2
Another difficulty is the challenge of finding a long-term partner who is willing to enter into a committed relationship. With online dating becoming the main platform for meeting new people to date, there is a commodification of people going on. With so many choices, many don't quit the search for that "perfect" person. As Esther Perel has said many times publicly, these days people are looking for the best friend, lover, companion, soulmate, etc. And while this is a very worthwhile aspiration, nobody is perfect. So it's important to look at relational dynamics in society and not just the fertility rate. There is a much larger story.
9
Like another reader, I am shocked that this article made no mention of maternity leave and childcare. Really? “It’s one of the big demographic mysteries of recent times.” Let me, a 29 year old married lady, enlighten you: my husband and I, after taxes, bring home just 90K a year. That seems like a lot, but not in my metro area after childcare and associated costs. Healthcare - just to have the baby is going to cost 20 grand! (And if the kid is born with a heart condition, maybe needs surgery - that's another 100,000.) Maternity leave in this country is garbage, paternity leave basically doesn't exist. And when I recently interviewed, I was very careful not to reveal my age for fear of not getting hired - because everyone "knows" what terrible liabilities pregnant women and mothers are. Is the mystery solved yet?
My more conservative elders say, "Don't have a baby until you can afford it." Fine - but then get comfortable waiting another 5 years or so.
If policy makers want to encourage people to have children, then create the conditions that make it favorable choice, not a massive financial liability.
37
Exactly. It is expensive to have kids and it is expensive to raise them good.
3
That is a non factor. Back not long ago when most women were only housewives, the birth rate was much higher. And other countries have even tried to bribe women to have kids, and nothing has worked.
5
"paternity leave basically doesn't exist." How right you are. When my daughter and son-in-law had their first child, using his healthcare benefit and taking advantage of a modest paternity leave, it wasn't long before his workplace started looking for a reason to fire him. My independent insurance agent confirmed that it's a real danger if you actually use your healthcare benefits, that your employer will find a reason to let you go. Some insurance companies pressure employers to get rid of "expensive" employees.
7
I love my kids more than anything, and having a family has been (still is !) the most rewarding experience of my life.. BUT they are all young adults. And if I were starting now, I would definitely have seconds thoughts. Not that any time in (modern) history has been 'perfect' to raise a family. And no matter how 'successful' one is, there is always a struggle both financially and time-wise; it's never a perfect time to have kids.
But this point in history really gives me concern about what kind of life anyone not part of the 1% will live. And there is a limit to the circumstances from which even that much money can protect you. As many here note, there are some serious problems in the world and the outlook is grim. We now live in a kakistocracy. And a large part of the population seem to believe that's a good thing !!
Its hard to see that there is any way to avoid a very steep decline in civilization until it bottoms out.
13
Those of child-bearing age are now living the dream of being the first cohort in decades to have a lower standard of living than that of their parents. There is no guarantee that it will get better for the succeeding generations. Indeed, Trump's war-mongering, moves to degrade the environment, dismantling of public education, efforts to take the health out of health care in the name of profit, and propagation of hate toward all but white evangelicals are unfavorable for the majority of prospective mothers and fathers.
16
Is there any need to add more? We are facing a global environmental crisis. Having a child in this context is a gesture of hope but it might well be quite selfish. There is high employment but for how long? And wages aren't rising. If one reads the New York Times, there is every reason not to embark on the baby project. I agree with many that the idea of women postponing marriage until their careers are established has been around for quite a long time. More accurately there are women and men who never really get their careers together, never have the kind of job security and nest egg that makes it possible. For many, the situation is grim. Or don't you believe what your journalists are writing in this paper.
15
The decline in teenage pregnancy alone is the great news from this report, and so the notion that putting off having children is a wise move -- to finish college and find a career first -- appears to be resonating throughout the U.S. It also indicates that women are becoming more independent, using birth control and exercising their abortion rights when the timing for having a child is wrong. This bodes well for the future.
9
Really, its a mystery? Having a child is an expensive decision. In America, you get no paid family leave, no paid maternity leave, in many instances no maternity leave at all (paid or unpaid). Child care is expensive, after care is expensive, in many instances it will be more expensive to pay for child care that one parent makes after taxes. Most men and women of child bearing age work, there is no support for them. Not having children is often the smarter decision here in America. If you want Americans to have kids then we need government support like the support provided in Europe (and Ivanka's lame plan is not it).
16
On the other hand most couples that own a home own a home that is almost 2.2x as big as what was common in the 1950's. That alone is a huge expense.
3
From my current observation, those who are having the most amount of children (uneducated and poor) can least afford to have them.
Problem is those who should be having them, (highest educated and financially better off, with good jobs) are not pro-creating. Therefore dumbing down of the general population. A sort of reverse Darwinism.
17
Wonderful news. Fertility rates have to come down across the world if we are to have any hope of preventing further ecological degradation and fostering social and technological progress. China is often criticized for its one-child policy but it has eliminated famines that plagued the country for so long and set it on its meteoric economic and political rise. There is a clear correlation between high fertility rates and subjugation of women, poverty, ignorance and political instability. Science has liberated us from reproductive slavery. Whatever downsides postponing childbearing has for some women, they may be solved by scientific methods (ova freezing, embryo culling and eventually DNA manipulation). We don’t need more children; we need better children: free of genetic diseases, wanted by their parents, and properly educated. And since I already foresee a chorus of indignant (and ignorant) voices crying “eugenics”, let me point out that the horrors of eugenics are exemplified by a ditch full of corpses, not a laboratory full of Petri dishes.
7
My wife and I are in our mid 30's. We have two kids (almost 5, the other almost 2). All things being equal we would probably like to have one more. We talked about it before. We even have an extra room in our house already. As it is, my wife has 2.5 - 3 years left until she finishes her PHD and then she will look for a job. Once she starts working again, it probably will be at least a year before we try (if we do). At that point I will be in my 40's and she in her late 30's. The is very good chance at that point we may just decide two is enough. And I sincerely mean it when I say this, I am perfectly fine with that outcome as well. 2 already are a lot of work and I fully support my wife's educational and career ambitions. I come from a big family (6 kids), our kids already have 9 cousins just on my side of the family. She has one, childless for now, brother who just got married this year. I am not worried about our family lines withering away or anything.
2
the problem is pets have replaced the natural nurturing urge humans have.....animals have become surrogate children.
It's a modern day plague that is going to have far reaching consequences. Humans calling animals their baby is nothing short of tragic. I consider there to be a moral component to it,
considering all the children that need a parent and do not have one, it is immoral. Children are going hungry and without healthcare, not pets, we spent 69.5 billion on our pet babies last year. Having a career and a pampered pet will not be deathbed fulfillment, not having a child will be your regret. There is no do over.
28
Except that the research consistently shows that if you compare regrets between older adults who CHOSE to have children, and older adults who CHOSE not to, the proportion of those who had the kids who regret that decision is higher than among those who chose not to.
43
interesting....I suppose the defining factor is how good a parent you were ...I feel bad for the children of those who regret them...
could you provide that research.
First off, if you’re upset that children don’t have healthcare or adequate food, contact your elected official. It’s the people in Washington who are trying to gut healthcare, including healthcare for kids and food programs that benefit them.
Secondly, don’t make noise about all the kids who need parents unless you have or plan on adopting a couple of those in-need kids yourself. Not everyone is cut out for adoption. And in case you’ve been living under a rock lately, adoption is extremely difficult and often prohibitively expensive. It’s not something a lot of people can afford to do.
Finally, not everyone’s deathbed regrets are the same. Not everyone who doesn’t have children is going to regret it, and just because some people are born with functioning reproductive organs doesn’t mean they have any business using them. Life is an individual journey for us all, and can be filled with many things, including fulfilling careers and yes, pets (all of whom have been consistently nicer than some people I’ve met over the years). Kids are not necessarily everyone’s legacy and they shouldn’t be; however, the moral uprightness and goodness with which we treat our fellow man is a legacy for which we should all strive.
37
Reading the top comments, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rise of the smartphone. Many young people now know how to text and play games, but may not know to really find that special someone to start a family. We have seen a rise of social awkwardness and a decline in communication skills "in real life." It would be interesting if the author would speak about the marriage rate among young people and the correlation to the fertility rate.
9
My wife and I are Gen X. We both work and are paid well by national standards. We decided to have one child because we can't afford 2. Our son's day care costs about $25,000 per year. Add a few more thousand for clothes, food and activities. We forecast his college expenses at about $275,000 (not adjusted for inflation). And we believe we will need about $1.5 million to retire (also not inflation adjusted, assuming no social security and 50% of health care costs are paid by us).
I'm optimistic we will reach these goals because 1) We started 401ks at 23 years old and maxed contributions each year 2) We bought our home in 2007 and 3) We save decently by eating in and living reasonably.
We are well paid and got fantastically lucky (knock wood). How anyone else does this I have no idea.
18
As the numbers reveal, "anyone else" isn't/aren't doing it - literally (having babies). This is just one reason why Republican policies to "privatize" Social Security and Medicare (they actually mean eliminate both programs - more money in the pockets of the 1% after all and they gotta keep them happy) are self-defeating and will destroy our nation if Trump doesn't do it before 2020.
6
One of my daughters had continuing problems with infertility, lost several pregnancies, and our soon-to-be-born granddaughter. In the 4 years since she has become aware of an astounding number of women in her area who have had problems either becoming pregnant or keeping the pregnancies. She and her colleagues/friends are all pretty fastidious about their eating habits and the products they use. But if you don't know that harmful chemicals are in your food, water and other items you cannot even protect yourself. If the USA does not start getting serious about not allowing chemicals that are banned in most of the world we will continue to see this and other problems proliferate.
10
Sue - first let me tell you that I am so sorry for your daughter’s losses.
Your comment about the widespread fertility problems among your daughter’s peers is interesting. I’ve noticed this myself among my own peers, and I’m in my 30s. Of the women I know who have children, the vast majority had trouble getting pregnant, and several suffered miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies before finally carrying a pregnancy to term. These weren’t women in their later childbearing years: one started trying at 29 and it took her four years to have her only child, and another began trying immediately after she got married, at 30, only to confront serious fertility problems that required surgery and round after round of IVF. To see such consistent, sustained problems, particularly in the under-35 age group, makes we wonder if there isn’t something more serious going on, as none of these women had underlying health issues that would have caused such unremitting problems.
1
Rather than look to phenomena that have existed for years (women focusing on careers), it might be useful to consider explaining this "mystery" with a factor that is relatively new, namely, fears and doubts about the future of the world. There is plenty of reason to think that the next century in the USA will be less prosperous, less stable, and less progressive than the past century was. Others have even deeper fears related to climate change. If one believes the people who have studied the implications of climate change most thoroughly, it seems very likely that climate-related or -influenced social and demographic and probably political upheavals of a potentially catastrophic nature await in the not-so-distant future; indeed they may be happening already in some places (Syria). Is it surprising that people hesitate to bring an innocent life into a world that looks like it might be winding tragically down?
75
Pollutants and chemicals in our water, air, food, soil, household cleaners, personal care products, plastics, microwaves, EMFs, home building materials, flame retardants on furnishings, the list goes on and on. Alcohol, drugs (legal and illegal), smoking, lack of exercise and obesity/poor diets don't help much either.
13
There is no reliable, substantial, amount of research indicating any of this has a bearing.
3
I'm sure you have some scientific statistics to back that up?
1
My husband and I are fairly high-earners in our late 30s with a toddler. We just found out we're pregnant with twins, despite having no family history and having taken no fertility drugs.
We wanted two but thought of three children in daycare has us in an absolute panic. Infant daycare starts at $1,600 for in-home daycares in our area. And we can't afford one parent to quit work.
This news of people curtailing or limiting their families does not surprise me.
39
Why is this a problem? Let's stabilize the population and learn to live in peace with our planet. Why do we need an ever-growing, endlessly growing population of humans? Is it really making the world a better place? Robots and computers are starting to displace workers...we don't need so many people after all.
221
Bravo! I've never understood this need to further populate an already overpopulated planet -- especially coming from people who put their own wants and desires first. I never hear anyone give any forethought about the world that they are so prepared to bring this innocent baby into, or what sacrifices they are willing to make in order to ensure that they will raise a decent, self-sufficient, empathetic human being. And I don't see many people trying their best to raise those kinds of people. In fact, it seems like everyone wants a child, but no one wants to actually do the heavy lifting of being an actual hands-on parent. It feels like we're running low on parents, and running much too high on breeders.
41
It's a problem in that less developed countries and regions of the world continue to have populations spiraling out of control. A stable country population requires a birthrate of 2.0 per child-bearing age female to be maintained, not increased or decreased. In countries that have birthrates of 5.0, 6.0 and even higher, imagine the scramble for scarce resources that will become even more scarce as climate change invariably changes world weather patterns and raises the oceans, erasing massive amounts of coastal areas where high percentages of many countries' populations live. Take a look at the 2017 fertility rate chart compiled by the CIA here
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127..... It scared my socks off.
11
When 50%+ of our GDP is spent on old people's healthcare because youngsters aren't breeding, you'll see why this is a problem.
It would utterly devastate our economy which -- like it or not -- is 100% reliant on growth. And negative growth means even worse social services, which are already at 3rd World levels here.
Countries with sane spending -- who don't blow all their cash bombing the Middle East the way Democrats and Republicans do in the US, or giving handouts to the wealthy the way we currently do -- can weather an economic storm like this. The US cannot.
12
I have several professional friends who refuse to consider having children until after President Trump is gone.
62
This seems silly and an example of just how reductionist our culture has become. Politics is the new "religion" (not that I am traditionally religious at all), to the point that people who might otherwise have children decide not to because of who the President is? I voted for Obama twice (3 times if you count the 2008 primary) but I imagine conservatives were still having children between 2008-2016. And I know some hard-core liberals with children who are quite happy to have their children as a distraction from living politics every day. There are many good reasons not to have children, outlined by many commenters here, but this just seems to take political fanaticism to a new level.
4
How can it be political fanaticism when the actual policies are anti women, anti immigrant and anti minority?
1
Yeah, but did they vote for him or any other Republican for that matter?
1
How about the fact that life in the US is stressful enough without children. We are essentially living in a police state. Just today I learned that if I don't smile at the TSA agent, I might have to undergo a strip search the next time I try and board a flight.
If I have children, I have to protect them from TV, junk food, social media, Catholic priests gymnastics coaches and other pederasts, school yard bullies (cf. Donald Trump), drug pushers, predatory lenders, not to mention legislators trying to rob me of my social security and medicare while I am trying to take care of my kids.
Somebody should explain what the up side of having a kid is.
90
Fertility rates do not equal population growth or decline. As pointed out in the article, the population rate 'did not decline.' In fact, it's increasing, mostly due to immigrants both legal and illegal (I'd guess mostly illegal, but that doesn't matter to the NYTimes).
This country has doubled it's population in a mere 40 years; not as horrific as some countries in Africa and elsewhere (where women are not educated), but this is bad none-the-less.
How about an article on the impact on this country and the rest of the globe of population growth that cannot be sustained AND it's contribution to 'climate change.' Deforestation and excessive water use to name just two. It's not so much how much you drive, or even CO2 output from a modern coal factory - it's about too many people, and the population's increase mainly in uneducated, low-skilled, impoverished peoples.
25
What complete nonsense. Immigrants are twice as likely to start a business in America. They are infarc starting more businesses and hiring more people than non immigrant. I have 6 teachers in my family in TX, TN and LA and they all say that their immigrant students take school more seriously and when there is a parent teacher conference you can guarantee both parents are there. Stop vilifying immigrants because today's are brown and black not white like in past decades.
2
There is rarely, if ever, an overpopulation article printed here in the NYT. What's bad about taking in endless millions of poor, uneducated and unskilled immigrants from every third world country? What could possible go wrong with this?
5
How could you write an article like this and not even mention childcare? Was there no editor involved?
Millennials are broke. The wealth gap is at its highest since the Gilded Age. The costs of childcare are going up. Women in prime childbearing age aren't seeing our wages go up. My friends are teachers, non-profit workers, lawyers, artists, counselors, social workers. We're delaying having children because, although we're supposedly middle-class and college educated, we are not sure we can afford it. Wages for teachers have stayed stagnant. What was once a good job, that would enable you to raise a family on a single salary, now requires two salaries. And two salaries means two parents working, and that means you need childcare. Childcare is expensive, yet the people who do it are paid poorly.
And god forbid you're coming from a working class background.
I really wonder what is going on at the NYT lately. This is so bizarrely out of touch.
197
As my wife and I were told before we started our family, if you wait until you feel you are financially secure before you have children, you never will, because few among us ever feel they have enough. Yes, things are expensive, but recent costly expenses like cable tv and cell phones are now perceived as necessities when they were not a generation ago. And conception gets tougher as one gets older. Don't put it off too long. Just think of our parents and grandparents. Almost without exception they had fewer resources than we do yet they made it work. I hate to say it but "it's too expensive" is now being used as an excuse to not have children, as it is not to save for retirement.
19
Iris isn't talking about being financially secure, she's thinking like a parent and talking about not being able to afford decent childcare, which is a real issue with real consequences.
2
Absolutely the financial situation for most child-bearing couples is more fraught than in past generations, but as a member of that group who has two kids and had to make some difficult financial choices to do so, it helps to actually map out these costs instead of relying on simply feelings of dread and some perhaps-incorrect assumptions. Daycare is expensive but there are ways to mitigate it somewhat (e.g. shared nanny, home daycare, flex hours with a spouse, etc.), and sometimes it isn't as expensive once you actually look into the options. Plus, despite the doom-and-gloom you hear about employers, many of them are getting better about helping parents through the struggles of child-rearing and giving you options for, say, remote work or non-traditional hours. It's not perfect, but it's a start. And there's also the reality that day care is for a relatively short amount of time before their child(ren) go to school, which has attendant costs but does lessen the load somewhat.
I guess my point, and one I think is being made elsewhere, is that there are always going to be pressures on prospective parents, whether it be cultural, financial, or biological. Not everyone must or should have children, but articles like this always feel like precursors to future articles where said women in their mid-to-late 30's bemoan the cruel realities of older fertility rates.
The economy has been structured into “haves and have nots”. To be a “have”, however, you must sell your life to the corporate standard for loyal employees. This means total dedication to corporate goals, all else is secondary, including family welfare and obligations. Children have become an expensive liability and educating them is becoming an impossibly expensive cost unless you reach the upper 10% of the financial success status world. Class jumpers must forget large families in favor of a few children later in life, when it is possible to secure their access to better education and provide them leverage to a higher status life. Eventually, students of history will discern the great shift that happened to America from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Businesses shifted towards being financial vehicles instead of dominated by product creators and focused on win-win customer transactions. MBAs, and their ilk financial engineers, replaced engineering degrees for the smartest, and greed became good. Having it all quickly and at any cost permeated the mindset of the new generation of non-inventor corporate leaders, instituting a lingering anti-social pathology that supposedly reflects “making America Great” but really reflects making the current financially driven leadership to become even richer yet and denying justified wage increases for workers.
19
>The most recent decline has been deepest for minorities. The fertility rate among Hispanic women dropped more than 27 percent between 2007 and 2016, the most recent year of data by race. The rate for whites has dropped about 4 percent, for blacks about 11 percent and for Asians about 5 percent.
Seems that this is the real answer - the massive drop in fertility among (Catholic) Hispanic women, and has little to do with everyone's complaints about how hard it is to live, as the two groups with highest average SES (whites and Asians) have only had small drops in fertility rates.
9
Why would POC want to have children in Trump's America? Racism is oud and proud- out in the open and GOP lawmakers are cutting the safety net and women's healthcare to the bone at every opportunity. the GOP love socialism aka wealthcare but only for the 1%.
4
As a side point in this article, the author mentions that low fertility rates can negatively impact the economy due to an inability to have a sufficiently large work force, as happened with Russia and Japan. To date we have avoided this due to immigrants coming to the US to work, she states.
It is not a stretch to say that the Trump administrations actions to limit immigration are actually harming the country rather than saving it, as they would like us to believe.
18
As most people mentioned, there is no mystery involved... it's all about being able to adequately support a child. With time, money, and attention. What would help is a return to wages that allowed single earner households so that one parent could stay home by choice. That means government subsidies or raising incomes. That includes single parents. If both parents want to work we need better child care options that are subsidized and standardized by the government and open 24 hours. There should also be "sick kid" childcare for when your kid has a cold. They had this in Orlando when my daughter was young. She could go during the day and they had 8 little hospital beds and TVs, they fed them soup and goldfish crackers and monitored their vitals and pushed fluids and gave tylenol if needed. A nurse was the caregiver. If we want a next generation to improve America, then we need to make it the Family Friendly place we always say it is. Forgiving all student loans would also be a good thing. Medicare for all. Eliminating the Income Tax and using a VAT instead on everything but food, clothing, hygiene items (including tp, tissue, paper towels), baby items and economy cars... this would raise enough money to cover all of that. Voila, new baby boom.
14
This phenomenon now needs to spread throughout the entire world, and quickly, including to the high fertility regions that have seen our globe reach 7.5 billion plus; and expected unfortunately to hurtle on toward 8 billion; then 9 billion; then 10 billion; then 11 billion, before, maybe, maybe leveling off.
US population was 248 million in 1990. It is now 327 million in 2018, nearly 80 million more. People wonder about sprawl; traffic; decimation of wildlife corridors; collapsing bird and bat and bee populations, and the increasing inability to govern an ever more "Balkanized" nation, etc. Wonder no more.
French Prime Minister Macron said it best last summer. High birth rates do not contribute to the ecological, political or economic stability of the regions suffering from such fertility rates.
66
Don't be too concerned. When the water and food wars start because of the Global Warming famine there will be a marked decrease in global population as the poorer, less well armed countries are depopulated by starving at the foot of the wall.
3
I mean, what is the mystery here? We don't have health coverage, we don't have paid maternity leave or paternity leave, and we don't have free child care. Frankly, we should be surprised anyone is still having children in the current shift to gig economies and with the political and economic uncertainty that we are facing (sure, jobs are increasing, but what kind of pay and benefits are they coming with?).
67
There are numerous economic and social forces that affect the birthrate in the United States. I will add another consideration. When making the important decision to bring a child into the world, would you elect to subject an innocent child to Trump's America?
19
I am gratified that so many comments to this article point out that a lower birthrate may be a blessing for the environment that could promote the long-term interests of the planet and its people. These comments provide yet another example of how the political parties and much of the news media fail to reflect the views of large numbers of Americans. The potential hazard of population growth is a taboo subject in political discourse and is almost entirely ignored in articles and commentaries in print and electronic media. I am grateful to the Times and other publications for providing comments sections which provide outlets for the expression of opinions that are widely held but rarely expressed by politicians or journalists.
37
"She noted that the numbers of births to 10- to 14-year-old girls, now only a few thousand, are down from over 6,000, 10 years ago."
Can we assume that there were "a few thousand" successful prosecutions of the fathers for these children of rape?
10
Thank you Greg, when I read this my thought was that 6000 births to children between ages 10-14 is still 6000 too many!
8
Unfortunately, not always.
An adult father can avoid statutory rape charges in many states, by marrying the underage mother.
1
And why !! would such young girls (10-14 --- disgusting!!) not have an abortion? Were they probibited by 'right for lifers' who do not seem to care about the Right to Life for a girl? Who got them pregnant in the first place?
This number should be ZERO in any civilized country.
7
The decline may be due to an emerging new morality about having children. Potential parents logically must be asking themselves where the world is going. Whether its trajectory is toward environmental disaster, economic chaos, unending wars and even worse exploitation by the wealthy and powerful. Many who go through that exercise will conclude that they have a moral duty not to create a person who will never know a good life.
26
Thank goodness that people are waking up to the fact that breeding is optional. This article would have been more balanced with input from consciously Childfree Women and men. We are many!
47
There are two solutions to the falling birth rate, but they are diametrically opposed:
1) increase wages, build affordable housing, lower tuition so that college grads aren't in debt forever, provide adequate family leave and child care; or
2) outlaw abortion, birth control, and sex education (except for abstinence).
Right now it looks like the GOP dominated administration and state governments are choosing path #2.
11
This is a really, really good thing. There are too many people on this planet and Americans are the biggest emitters of CO2.
We are cooking ourselves- not slowly but very quickly. We need to achieve zero net growth on a planetary level- every country that achieves that should be commended.
Now we just need to stop importing tens of millions of people are we will be on track to save something.
The parts of the world that are still experiencing a population boom must face their future on their own. We cannot absorb their endless millions- it is destroying the planet and, ultimately, ourselves.
We will have to change the way our economy works so that we are not reliant upon ever larger numbers of people. It will require automating a lot of jobs.
26
One more comment: I predict this is no temporary decline in birthrate (NOT fertility, as another reader pointed out) and actually makes the author appear rather naive. American politics continue to create more and more obstacles to having children. This is simply the natural outcome of refusing to legislate family friendly policies.
17
Having children or not having them should be a "rational" decision. Most young Americans can read the economic and cultural tea leaves quite easily: American society provides little to no support for those who would like to start families. Not in terms of family leave, job security or affordable higher education. Middle class is no longer one partner working who can support the needs of a family.
So, it doesn't surprise me that people aren't having children and, frankly, if people can't afford to raise children, they shouldn't have them in the first place.
16
My Gen X daughter, who works from home and needs a few uninterrupted hours each day, has been paying $18 per hour for a part-time nanny. (She doesn't live on one of the Coasts--nannies in SF make $25 per hour.) Starting in the fall, when younger child turns 2, she will pay over $1200 for morning pre-school (nurturing but not super fancy). And you wonder why Amercan woman aren't having more kids???
188
Why am I not surprised? Young people are told to get a college education in order to get a good paying job. Tuition costs follow them for more than 10 years while housing is at an all time high, especially in cities those good paying jobs occur. Observant students notice. Affordable housing for those who do start families, is way out in the boonies, requiring hours of driving time. Exhaustion. Observant co-workers notice. Moms and dads often divorce. Observant kids notice.
For heaven's sake, food is expensive, concerts are outrageously expensive, cars cost more than my first house and coffee drinks are one of the daily perks of being alive in 2018 when we are on the brink of nuclear disaster, stress is a normal condition and hope for betterment is just out of reach.
And this administration thinks we don't need help with healthcare, birth control or abortion and promotes a strong individual responsibility ethic rather than a collective 'we'll get through this together' approach.
People of childbearing age are more savvy, more educated and have more choices than ever before in the history of the world and they are using those tools to make smart decisions about their future.
38
I imagine the main reason for declining birth rates are American political policies towards families.With little or no paid maternity leave, high cost of childcare and healthcare, the necessity of both parents working to maintain even a modest standard of living, all are obstacles to having children. To me it is no mystery at all, as I see my own grown children deal with the challenges of maintaining their careers and caring for young children. The schools do not support parents, who must juggle childcare around their schedules , for example. There is absolutely zero support for families, you are on your own when you decide to have children in America.
19
I'm the primary breadwinner for my little duo of a family. I'm 31 and have student loans to pay every month. Give me paid maternity leave and actual childcare options and I'll have some kids. Until then, it's just too expensive.
57
Having a baby is going in for the long run and your long-lasting impact as a human far exceeds what you do in your day to day job. But our country has set up a mean-spirited financial trap for us all regarding having children. No child care, no wage gap protections, public school being defunded, nothing supporting families, no support for moms wanting to return to the workforce, terrible costs for college, no retirement, pensions? What is happening is that those of childbearing age are getting wise to the bait and switch (bait of the past romance of having children, and the switch of no help from anyone.) So they are willing to say no to save themselves and ultimately us. I wish they were not having to put their childless long lives on the line to help help American society see the need for a better support system.
30
Corrected version…
I am going to take a different point of view, which I sincerely hope does not offend anyone.
If we want to maintain a healthy planetary ecosystem we can not have unlimited human population. We are starting to experience some of these problems already. A few obvious ones...deforestation, air and water pollution, severe decline of non human large animals, waves of refugees with no place to go and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, our current economic system requires an endless supply of new workers. We need a new economic system that does not require an ever increasing population. If this can be done we can all live better on this small beautiful planet.
142
Well, if that's the objective, then there's lots of good news: according to a recent study by McKinsey, a large percentage of all jobs performed today will be replaced by robots in the coming decade.
I'm sure all those people who are unable to find employment will simply collect a government subsidy and live peacefully, engaged in other productive unpaid activities... That's what usually happens when people collect a paycheck and don't have anything to do, right?
3
"If we want to maintain a healthy planetary ecosystem we can not have unlimited human population.'
Excellent point, except...is that the real REASON women aren't procreating as often? If it were, I would be all for it. But I doubt it is.
2
"...and demographers are trying to figure out what is driving it." Let me help you: Millennials are poor, in debt and have limited prospects for household formation given soaring rents and house prices (thanks Federal Reserve!). Try that.
52
I am going to take a different point of view, which I sincerely hope does not offend anyone.
If we want to maintain a healthy planetary ecosystem we can not have unlimited human population. We are starting to experience some of these problems already. A few obvious ones...deforestation, air and water pollution, severe decline of non human large animals, waves of refugees with no place to go and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, our current economic system requires an endless supply new workers. We need a new economic system that does require an ever increasing population. If this can be done we can all live better on this small beautiful planet.
6
What about this is a mystery? Are you kidding me?
I have friends that have student loan repayments ranging from $300-$1000/mo. One THOUSAND. Add on top of that every other possible living expense, no health insurance or poor health insurance, and having to work constantly just to pay for all of that.
The planet is getting too hot, the ocean is full of garbage. I refuse to force that burden on a child just by having them. How about a world that isn’t dictated by the pharmaceutical and sugar industries? Not yet? That’s my answer too.
157
All I can say is OH GOOD!
47
I am not being flip when I say this, but you may feel differently when you are elderly and there are not enough young workers to pay into SS, taxes for other societal necessities, to be employed as nursing assistants and home health aides, etc. Overpopulation is not an issue in "developed countries" - the looming problem will be too many old folks that need support and not enough younger folks to do this - I am a little worried about this.
4
Yes, one of my grandsons has 12 grandparents (because of divorces and remarriages). And for several of these grands, he is the only grandson. (Not me, thank goodness).
"…the looming problem will be too many old folks that need support and not enough younger folks to do this…"
They're called robots. They don't age, or sleep, or eat. Japan is already preparing to care for old people in the future with an armada of robots.
It's a result of elitism which affects nearly every aspect of our lives, diminishing the American dream. The 1% has been sucking the populace dry for a good 30 years now. Result? High cost of basics and little recourse to the horn of plenty that was evident in post-WWII America. This has been couple with swiftly declining religious and cultural communities for whom the family was bedrock. Now people think nothing of prioritizing work or play over the deep ties of love and family, the Peter Pan effect of extended teenage-ism and people get resentful over the thought of actually growing up to become the foundation of the next generation. "But I haven't yet..." "But I wanted to..." Newsflash: you're never going to be able to do it all in your lifetime. Do what's most important and get back to reality. Marriage as a goal for those between 25-30 is a good thing, and just ONE marriage at that. Capitalism is not the best thing going, especially since it (and probably the hippies) are responsible for the "me first" attitude which has brought all this about.
7
I am not a Peter Pan, and neither is my partner. I just don't see how my life can be improved with the economic, physical and emotional stress of children. Life is expensive and complicated enough without children, but at least in the little free time we have, we can enjoy great food, the pursuit of knowledge through reading and study, travel, the volunteer work we do that takes up several weekend days a month in conservation. There is absolutely nothing missing from our lives that a child can bring, and the planet thanks us.
21
The first part of your comment makes sense. The rest does not.
8
I respect your choice, although I think you're missing life's greatest adventure (parenthood).
But along with the planet in general, I thank you for your conservation volunteer work. I hope to participate in raising grandchildren who will be happy to support you in your old age. (That is not snark; I'm sincere).
Women are marrying and having children later in life than they did in the past. SO ARE MEN.
Women are having fewer children per capita. SO ARE MEN.
Women are holding off on having children until they feel financially stable enough to support them. SO ARE MEN.
The same economic forces--namely, student-loan debt, the "gig economy," the high cost of housing in major cities (and lack of decent-paying jobs where the housing is cheap), the high cost of healthcare, and high cost of daycare--are affecting men and women in their 20s and 30s alike. And there's little chance for the "it takes a village" type of childcare arrangements--most grandparents, if they even live nearby, are still in the workforce themselves.
In short, many people of both sexes of prime childbearing age are not having children right now because they cannot afford all of the Big Four (housing, student loan payments, healthcare, daycare) at the same time, those that ARE having kids because they are making enough to make those four expenses bearable are only having one or two, and those who can afford to have three or more are not because they are working so many hours that they are too damn tired to even consider adding another crying baby to the mix.
268
Could not have said it better, as a 22 yr old male I can attest these are issues affecting the perceptions of both sexes. Why bring a child into this world without trying to give him/her the best opportunity to succeed, it seems this abstinence is a cultural shift and a very unselfish one at that. Studies have shown older more mature parents make better parents anyway.
28
Yup, you nailed it. The same forces that are driving income inequalities and killing the middle class are having our generation postpone child baring or forgoe it. I recall watching Paul Ryan lament our low birthrate which makes my blood boil. We need immigration reform and policies that support families: parental leave, affordable college tuition, affordable housing, affordable health care and living wages.
36
I'm not sure why this is perceived as women "postponing" childbirth. I think there are simply more people uninterested in having children. The planet already has more humans than it can support. And unless you have a deep desire to be a parent, which not everyone does, why bother? I'm 37 and have never considered having children, I don't see any reason to.
102
Me too and I’m 41!
8
The tone of this article seems to say that declining birth rates are a bad thing because “a country can face challenges replacing its work force and supporting its older adults”. I don’t want to discount those challenges but wish the positive aspects of declining birth rates were emphasized more often. The earth’s resources are not able to sustain an ever increasing population and how many of us want to live in an ever more crowded world anyway? Uncontrolled population growth is a giant pyramid scheme that is destined to eventually ruin life on earth for both humans and many animal and plant species.
If anything, society should provide universal birth control without being coercive. For women who aren’t sure they want children, we should be encouraging them to find fulfillment in other ways. For those who do want to be mothers, we should be encouraging them to have only one child. If they want more, there are millions of orphans in the world that need adoptive parents. That process should be made easier and more affordable.
No one can really say what the ideal human population of earth should be. However, so many problems such as the loss of wildlife habitat, environmental pollution, climate change, economic refugees, crowded cities, insufferable traffic, lack of enough jobs, poverty….the list goes on and on…could be mitigated by a gradual reduction in human population.
113
They don't emphasize that because the current system is a cross between a giant ponzi scheme, and a desire by our corporate overlords to breed ever more wage slaves.
40
More wage slaves and also more consumers. Over the last three decades, family planning and birth control, especially for countries where it is needed most, have become taboo subjects, driven and directed, IMHO, by corporate-powers-that-be.
I think this is a "no brainer" so am surprised the experts are mystified. Having children is a lot of work, not always emotionally fulfilling (just the opposite, actually), and exceptionally costly to boot. Women are no longer raised in this country to be "mom" oriented, they are raised to have careers, which quite frankly, can be more fulfilling than having children. Parenting can be isolating and limiting, and the "returns" don't come for years. I believe there was a time when, as a society, we placed more value on children and relationships in general. That made parenting feel more fulfilling, in spite of its hardships. Now, children just get in the way of our careers and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars over 20+ years. And, most of the burden falls on women who are looking at parenting and thinking, wait, do I really want to put myself through this?
I have a 16 year old and an 11, and I am pooped! I want the best for them but admit that I also look forward to just being me again and remembering what makes me happy and fulfilled, though I think I might end up feeling lost, at least for a while. Parenting can be so emotionally taxing, in a society focused on career and $, that the emotional costs always dampened the feelings of joy that I've had from raising kids. Balancing work (a necessity for me) and parenting is torture. I may not be representative, and I had my kids quite late ( I do NOT recommend - physically your 20s is a perfect time), but that's my take.
31
I hear ya. I wish our society were more supportive of parents. I had two daughters (and a supportive husband) five years apart. I remember a time when they were 16 and 11 and through a miracle of miracles, they and their dad were all out of town for a week. It was the first time in years I had been alone in my house for more than half an hour.
Now that they're 30-somethings and 40-somethings, I can say, it's survivable. In fact, it just keeps getting better (even in the bad times).
I still say parenthood is life's greatest adventure. The more parents and grandparents in our society the more people who (should) feel they have a stake in the future. I know I continue to care about problems facing people younger than myself because I have young ones in my family who will live here after I'm gone.
3
This does not bode well for the long-term future of these United States. A declining birth rate means fewer citizens in the future, and with fewer citizens, our consumption-based economy will also decline. Our population pyramid is already upside-down, with steady declines in 0-4, 5-9, 10-14 and 15-19 year old brackets.
The children of today will be the workers of tomorrow, the parents of tomorrow, the consumers of tomorrow. The steady decline in "tomorrow's population" does not bode well for our long-term national health. The only possible avenue to avoid a declining economy is to accelerate our immigration rate, which runs counter to the present administration's stated goals of diminishing our immigration rate.
Will Trump's anti-immigrant policies doom any hopes of long-term economic growth in these United States?
1
So the "solution" for the world's overpopulation problem and the ecological the sustainability of the North American continent is to simply import tens of millions of humans from elsewhere to try and achieve Delhi, India population density in the United States?
4
The headline is misleading (and maybe the study titles are too). In common lingo, “fertility” refers to one’s ability to procreate, not to whether or when a woman actually get pregnant or gives birth. Why not title your article “Rates of Pregnancy Drop...” or some other wording that doesn’t mislead people into thinking that fewer and fewer American women are able to get pregnant (as is the case in Margaret Atwood’s terrifying dystopia, A Handmaid’s Tale)? Especially given the tenor of current American politics, it’s important to relay fact and information as accurately as possible
4
Many people can't afford children and many who can are questioning whether or not it is moral to bring children into a world beset by global warming and ever increasing pollution.
15
You mention the percentage-drop of the birth rate was largest amongst racial minorities. But you fail to mention the absolute value pre or post drop. Is this out of political correctness? Any thoughts?
3
Are they looking at the increase in prescription medication? MANY antidepressants "take the transmission out of"/affect one's sex drive, delay a male's orgasm as do many other medications for wont of effort.
It's no longer a sprint but a marathon...
4
gee i wonder what could be happening in america, since 2016, to cause people to reconsider or postpone having babies
11
Changing demographics, RU-486, education . . .
Ultimately, who knows? But I'll take both an underaged pregnancy drop and fewer babies born in families not financially ready for them any day of the week.
12
I seem to lack the optimism needed to reproduce.
25
A graphic, a map, breaking this down by demographic criteria would be informative.
(I'm betting on the 'Idiocracy' effect, obviously).
5
Most people can't afford to take care of their own financial needs, let alone support children. The answer is to change government policies, in particular to provide adequate and affordable child care and education. In other words, the fertility rate will continue to decline.
15
How is there confusion about the cause? The cost of living has skyrocketed for the current generation which is additionally saddled with unprecedented levels of debt. Childcare is prohibitively expensive and it takes 2 incomes just to pay rent or a mortgage on a halfway decent place to live. People simply can’t afford to both have families and maintain the quality of life they expect or even find acceptable. Women (and men) wouldn’t be delaying family formation for the sake of career advancement if money wasn’t an issue!
14
A big part of this decline is our culture. There's more availability than ever to find a mate, and TV reminds us all what attractive looks like. Many faces float past one on their quest to find their "right one". Many women and men simply don't add up anymore as a result of the comparison shopping we all do now. Either they aren't that attractive or aren't that financially stable or aren't that educated, etc. These metrics rarely change and often get worse for many as they age, thus making it even LESS likely the older they get that they will find the one to have children with.
9
This is the best news I've heard in a long time. Let's keep this up. But it is birth rate, not fertility. I wish humans would have a drop in fertility. High human fertility, evolutionarily advantageous at one time, is now a curse.
I think some of the reasons for the drop in birth rate may be related to biological (instinct?) forces wherein a significant number of a species such as humans, subconsciously recognizes that the numbers are imperiling the future of the species as a whole.
Such a situation now exists the world over and it should be obvious to everyone. Way too many humans on this planet.
Hand in hand is the recognition by many people - I've seen in anecdotal evidence from young people - that the US and the planet as a whole is just not a good place to put innocent children.
36
Corporate greed is driving this. In my garden I have plants that can only grow so high and so wide because the root system is bound by the constraints of the pot that they are in. When I replant those plants in a bigger pot, the roots spread and the leaves and flowers increase. Unfortunately in some cases, the constraints of the pot are too great and the plants die. Growth and personal opportunity are no longer readily accessible in America. in the countries most populated metro areas, people cannot upsize their home without considerable financial means and financial sacrifice. The same problem can be witnessed in Europe. Corporate greed and to a signicant degree, anachronistic housing policy, has circumscribed their upward mobiliy to the point to which growth, or even lateral momement are virtually denied to the majority people. Yet corporate coffers I’ve never been fatter. I think it is disingenuous to say that fertility rates are dropping. I think if you dig a bit deeper, you will see that births are dropping because people choose not to have more or any kids, and they have the technology to avoid pregnancy. Furthermore, as long as we continue to see this government in complete service to corporations at the expense of the electorate, we can count on seeing fewer and fewer middle class babies.
16
Why is this a problem, or concern ??? Maybe some people are finally realizing the Planet is FULL. Very, very Full. Just saying.
81
My peers who are having children seem to struggle financially for years due to this decision. From my perspective, it's not economically responsible to have children when you don't own any real assets and have a combined $100,000 in student debt. I'd rather continue to build my earning potential and, if I feel the deep desire in my later 30s, roll the dice to see if I'm still physically able to conceive.
16
Wish you well! I conceived naturally at 44. Just make sure you have a great short term disability plan in case anything goes wrong.
4
"The biggest falls have been among younger women, but last year the birthrate even declined for women in their 30s, an unusual development, demographers said. The rate had been rising for that group, as more women delayed childbearing.
“I was surprised to see that reversal,” said Gretchen M. Livingston, a demographer at the Pew Research Center. She cautioned into reading too much into one year."
The year was 2017. Donald Trump was president. It makes perfect sense.
27
Overall, the decline in birthrates is a good thing, but I fear this Administration's policies will upend the declining birthrates among teenagers.
32
Here are some possible reasons you will never see covered by the NYTimes.
1-The devaluing and feminization of the American male by modern day feminists. Many men them don't want to get married. I watch them in my area (hipsters), walking alone and beautiful woman(s) go by them and they go out of their way not to look at them. That was unheard of in modern history. I am stunned watching it.
2-The party line to young women by feminists to have everything, party hardy and then at age 35-40, men will flock to you, want to have two kids and everybody lives happily ever after. Only a few things wrong with this. Women have difficulty at this age having children. They are far less physically desirable to men then in their teens/early twenties. Men have been devalued and feminized anyway and are not interested.
10
A note to the author: You might want to investigate how men feel about being fathers in this day and age as well. Just a suggestion.
133
Good point. Can you tell us at least one point of view?
1
The falling fertility rate can be attributed to a cocktail of influences: delayed age for marriage, increased education timelines, increased student loan debt, increased women in the workforce, availability of effective birth control, relative economic/social turbulence, increased lifestyle options for women and men, etc.
My husband and I are both in our mid-twenties, own a home, live within a metropolitan area, have an upper-middle class household income, and do not have any children. We don't have kids because we don't want to have kids. We both do not have the desire to have children, and other people with similar opinions also contribute to the falling fertility rate.
37
If demographers are wondering why this is happening, all they have to do is ask women of childbearing age. As a 31 year old woman living in a major metro area, there are two main reasons why my husband and I have chosen to have one child:
1. Cost of living. We pay $2100/month for an accredited daycare center for our daughter. That is just slightly above average for the area. We paid nearly $700K for a townhouse in order to make sure we were in a neighborhood with strong public schools. Even though we both have well-paying jobs, we cannot afford to support two or more children with that cost of living.
2. More women--including me--do not want to stop working when we have children. Our husbands (for those of us married to men) are also usually not taking time off of work, so we have to balance two full-time careers. Maybe some people can do that with 2 or more children, but my husband and I felt that we could be better parents to one child (time-wise, and from a distribution of financial resources standpoint) than two or more children.
The details of a family's calculus might change, but the overall dynamics and trends I outlined above apply to more and more families. Some of it is great--like women pushing to continue working--and some of it is indicative of skyrocketing costs, but it doesn't seem like a mystery to me.
132
About point 2 -- studies show that most women would choose to stay home with the kids if their husbands let them. Sounds like you need a talk with your man and convince him that forgoing the country club membership this year is going to be okay.
There have also been studies showing lower birth rates correlating during times of greater social and political turbulence which I think we are fully engulfed in at this time. I had my one child at 36. He is now 16 and I actively worry what kind of world will be left for him given the decisions being made (and regulations being undone) by the current political administration.
49
Last year, I mentored a high school senior from Bronx Science. As she was preparing for college--visiting campuses, writing applications, requesting financial aid--she mentioned to me that she received $65,000 in grants and scholarships from her top choice.
I almost choked, incredulous. "How much is tuition?" With a devastating nonchalance, she told me that tuition at her large university in Massachusetts now runs more than $72,000 a year. According to her classmates' experiences, it's the going rate for private higher education.
Think about this figure and work backward. The cost of housing, education, supplies, sports, childcare care have all skyrocketed to a stratosphere that is untenable. We are a generation laden with our own crushing school debt. When we think about providing well for a child versus paying rent or--imagine!--buying a home, one can easily see why we choose stability. An added incentive: women are finally making great strides in the workplace.
I and many of my friends, who are in our early 30s, very much want children. But we're less idealistic than our baby boomer parents and less self-centered than our Gen X cousins. We want good, wholesome lives for our kids where we actually get to see them, raise them, know them, and provide for them. For our sake and the sake of our unborn kids, we accept--often with sadness--that we must wait.
85
Baby boomers were considered simultaneously idealistic (when young) & also the self-centered, selfish generation (yuppies and all that). Generation X the "slacker" generation. Personally, I find these broad-brush swipes and stereotypes of an entire generation nonsense. Every generation is idealistic when young. Then everyone goes out and lives in the world.
The implication that Baby Boomer parents or Gen. X parents did not or do not want good, wholesome lives for their kids where they got/get to see them, raise them, etc. is absurd. People make their way the best they can, whether Millenials or older generations, and they usually do so with lots of love for their kids.
14
Do you believe everything you hear? The most expensive tuition in America is fifty thousand. Seventy two might include everything- room and board, fees, books, spending money.
Obviously there were far cheaper options available- public universities with in-state tuition for starters.
Seventy two, or fifty, is outrageous. But in a post-truth world, there's no reason to spread exaggerations or false memes.
I don't see the mystery in the numbers. Look at the economic situation for young families. Housing costs are going up as fast wages as are healthcare costs. Young families are not getting ahead despite there being an overall economic recovery.
Nor is there any prospect of government programs that are family friendly. There are no plans for subsidized childcare. If a family thinks ahead then college is a scary large looming expense.
I also suspect that Trump's anti-immigration positions negatively impact Hispanic birthrate which is down 27%. I know legal immigrants that have had an undocumented relative come here to provide childcare. That has been getting progressively more difficult.
27
Housing costs always rise with increases in wages because there is more money available to chase prices. Also, people are ignorant about the actual costs of building and maintaining a home.
1
I'm 31, guess I should have had kids by now. I got out of college in 2010 when the economy was still in the worse of the Great Recession. Bounced around from unsteady low paying jobs before only recently landing a decent paying full-time job. However, I now find myself working 50-60 hours a week (due in part to a long commute) with very little time to socialize. Most people my age spend a lot of their free time and do their socializing online anyways, so that's where dating apps come into play. Unfortunately, I'm not quite so photogenic and personality doesn't really show on dating sites. To make a long story short; I don't think I'll be contributing to the US birth rate anytime soon (or at all)!
23
Our contemporary culture doesn't foster the notion that scaling back on one's freedom of choice and desire is a model to be esteemed or emulated. Children today are for the most part raised to believe that their choices for themselves are the most important thing in life, and as they get older, many of them see rearing children as a burden that will interfere with their personal freedom.
Government and business policies in this country do little or nothing to support and foster family life - I don't want to long for the good old days of blue laws when stores where closed on Sundays, stores closed at 9, and nothing was open on major holidays, but they made for more family and community time; the business model of transferring people every few years as a way towards promotion also chopped up a sense of community and family life, so essential to raising children sustainably.
I regularly hear from that child-bearing demographic that they fear they won't be able to work however they choose, travel as they choose, enjoy leisure time as they choose, or that they will "fail" as parents, but the barometers of autonomy and professional success aren't helpful in parenting. We all fail and succeed at the same time.
It's hard to raise kids without adequate social supports. We may give children physical life, but they give us existence as new people who can grow up in new ways.
15
I think you have some good points, however, I can say that personally the decision for me not to have kids was 99% based on not having financial stability. It took a while to get to an OK financial situation, but now I find myself in my early 30s feeling alone and emotionally drained from a demanding job with little benefits (remember during the recession, employers cut back benefits and wages knowing that they had a large pool of desperate job seekers). I know our generation gets a bad rap for being “selfish” and “narcissistic” but never underestimate the impact of the economic reality we found ourselves in as we were entering adulthood.
21
People don't (not 'can't') have kids because
1. They don't want kids.
2. They can't afford kids.
3
There is an economic model that says people must replace themselves for the society to maintain its and grow its economy.
In our society, the stock market, investors and multi-national companies are doing extremely well, there's a 4% figure of unemployment in the headlines, but you and your friends, perhaps degreed but definitely talented and hungry to work, cannot find jobs.
Our society's leaders want to destroy the planet's environment by embracing fossil fuels more than ever.
Our society does not yet embrace equality of the sexes.
Our society is stripping away affordable health insurance, permits no maternity leave and affordable childcare is impossible to find.
Babies are expensive. To have a child without having any income is asking for disaster. If you're part of the exalted 1%, all systems are go, otherwise, there's no reason to take this risk.
More people cause more pollution, leading to further climate change and environmental destruction. Here, fewer babies are ultimately better for the planet.
Regressive dependence on fossil fuels is what is happening in the U.S. Babies and children need transportation until death, and if they use fossil fuels for this, they kill the planet.
The article addressed women staying in the workforce until they had seniority, then having kids, but few woman break the glass ceiling.
And having a baby with no insurance, no maternal leave and no childcare is dangerous to the baby--the risk is too great.
63
I do not understand why people are confused by this. Lower and Middle class women have to work to make ends meet now. With zero social support systems for women in place, having a child is a huge disruption to your income between saving for a maternity leave, taking a leave and then paying for childcare. Then add in the stress of trying to balance two full-time jobs and the demands of an infant and you’ve created a scenario where young couples can handle the birth of one, maybe two children. I would love to have more children but it simply isn’t economically feasible.
56
I don't find it so difficult to understand. Young women have choices - better access to contraception, more career options, etc. But the flip side also leads to declining births - lack of affordable childcare, low wages, high college debt, and a general lack of respect for moms in the workplace (see the editorial from today's paper). My niece is 21 and in no hurry to have a child, and I applaud that decision.
62
This interesting article implicitly acknowledges that one of the factors in the decline of our birth rate is that women today have more options before them than was true in the past. However, it doesn't mention four other factors worthy of investigation: the roles of wage stagnation and income inequality, which surely impact one's decision to begin a family; the rising cost of housing, which makes establishing a desirable, permanent home extremely difficult for a growing family; any concern that environmental damage may be making potential parents wary of bringing new lives into a world that seems to be heading for catastrophe; and the role and perceptions of men who, after all, are an important part of the calculus. The article does however hint at the enormous irony that our birth rate is falling even as this White House seeks to shut the door on the only alternative means of maintaining our generational balance: immigration.
75
Please define your comment on 'immigration.' Legal immigration is fine, but diversity lotteries, chain migration, anchor babies, and illegal immigration are NOT FINE. Most of the population growth with 'immigrants' are due to the poor and low skilled. This is a big driver with the 'inequity' rants that the NYTimes and progressives love to rant about. It's true that many millennial adults decided not to have kids in their 20s, but that's been going on for 3 decades - well before the recession and birth of this generation. My kids are millenials and they and all of their friends have families. Many still rent as they cannot find affordable housing, have too much debt, or both; all have kids.
9
Ma's reply reflects several commonly held misconceptions regarding immigration. Ma declares that "legal immigration is fine" but that "diversity lotteries, chain migration, anchor babies and illegal immigration are not fine." In fact, the first two categories mentioned are in fact forms of legal immigration, while the third - birthright citizenship - is the process through which the vast majority of U.S. citizens acquire citizenship. Ma goes on to claim that most immigrants are poor and low-skilled, but that assertion is also flawed. Beginning sometime around 2007, the percentage of highly skilled immigrants overtook that of lower-skilled immigrants. Indeed, immigrants are more likely to have college degrees than persons born here, and they are nearly as likely to have a high school education. Further, immigrants have a higher rate of participation in the labor force than do persons born here. The truth is that immigrants make vital contributions to our economy and to our society, and without them, the adverse economic effects of our declining birth rate would be far more pronounced.
I don't understand why this is a mystery to demographers. I and my millennial peers are entering the job market later (an undergrad degree alone wont cut it for most professional careers) and under mountains of student loan debt. In response, we move to urban regions where we can earn enough to pay off our loans and we minimize costs by living in tiny shared housing. This is responsible and logical decision-making, but it's not conducive to having a kid. If we work hard, we HOPE to have paid down our student debt by our early 30s, freeing up some income for decent housing and daycare (which, FYI, will set you back $20k a year). Meanwhile, employers are demanding longer and longer hours: in 1960, NY law firms expected associates to bill 1300 hours per year. Today, it is 2100. And our legal and social expectations for "parenting" also have changed. No more latchkey kids: they can't even play in the yard without visible adult supervision. It's not surprising our generation is having fewer kids. It's surprising we're able to do it at all.
304
But, in that case, why has the decrease been greater among black women and Latino women than among white women? On your explanation, white women should have experienced the greater decline.
4
Valid points, but even in places like Quebec, where university is super cheap by comparison, so much less student loan debt to pay off, and daycare is heavily subsidized, fertility rates are even lower than in the States. Even when fertility treatments were 'free' (covered by our medical system), rates didn't go up much.
People don't need kids anymore, and lots either don't want them, or want 1 or 2 only, or don't feel strongly enough about having them to get moving on it.
We need to adapt to a low fertility world. Immigrants and robots, bring 'em on! Except robots don't pay taxes ....
16
The white birth rate was already low compared to the others. So there was less room to change.
Correction: change “fertility rates” to “birth rates” since that is what is actually being measured, apparently.
People having difficulty conceiving (getting pregnant) go to fertility clinics, not to Birthing or post-partum clinics. The point of the article and the study it’s based on, seems to be about how many births happened compared to numbers of women of childbearing age (whatever that means in today’s IVF-etc world). It’s 2018 and we know a lot more about fertility and how babies are made than we did back in the day when the only real way to confirm fertility was the proof of pregnancy and birth. Our medical and journalistic language ought to reflect that.
33