The Earth and all living things non-human thank you.
Frederick. O. Greene, Land of Keskantment
290
It’s another job Americans don’t want to do that’s been outsourced to foreigners.
212
We're not going back to the "norms" 20th century. When are people going to get that through their heads, as my dad used to say? The way to juice the fertility rate to 2.1 or more is to provide women with EQUAL opportunities, EQUAL pay, and not penalize them for becoming moms! It's not rocket science. Personally, I chose not to have children because I couldn't make enough money to justify the ever-rising cost of child-care where I would entrust my babies to strangers. No thanks! But since I was not born independently wealthy, it was either work or starve. So I chose work and not motherhood. Millions of other women obviously have done and are doing the same. I'm 67, so nope, not a millennial. I was a forerunner of what you see happening now en masse.
455
Greater gender equality is largely brought about by women having greater reproductive choice = many women are choosing to have fewer children = greater freedom and equality for women = women are no longer forced to be second citizens. Nothing surprising here.
180
Economic insecurity. It's hard to raise a family on $10.00 an hour and working 3 jobs.
286
I have 2 kids who I wouldn't trade for the world. But, my husband and I waited until we were established in our careers to have kids. We also decided not to have more than two. We wanted to have enough time for each kid, enough money to support ourselves, careers, and other interests. I also believe in just replacing yourself and being good to our planet. I was also flat-out exhausted after having two kids in 1.5 years!!
I think it is sad that people aren't able to choose to have kids due to the lack of resources. As a woman, the demands are so high as a parent financially, mentally and emotionally. You are expected to be super mom and a star worker and provide a million enrichment opportunities to your kids, not "let yourself go", figure out how to save for retirement & college etc. Also most people I know don't have much support from their immediate family like grandparents. All the support I've had for helping with childcare has all been paid, which is very expensive.
281
To the extent we want to help people achieve their reproductive dreams effectively and have well-cared-for children, the advocacy call here makes sense, but to the extent today's fertile Americans think twice about raising kids of our own, migration policy can do a heck of a lot more to offset the downsides of an aging population. The world isn't running out of kids. Bring on the huddled masses, please!
93
These seem like smart reasons to me. Especially since children born today will grow up in a world where the robots have all the jobs and planet is increasingly wracked by the effect of global warming. Who said that young people aren't paying attention
197
If anything, it appears that most of these people do not know the real reason they are not having children. The real reason is that they themselves are children and are not mentally ready to have such responsibility. This factor present, all the other worries would not play a decisive role.
67
"I wont have any children, because they won't have a job" is an extremely silly way to think.
31
The top eight responses were...
Child care is too expensive
Want more time for the children I have
Worried about the economy
Can’t afford more children
Waited because of financial instability
Want more leisure time
Not enough paid family leave
No paid family leave
...and the author concluded that the reason was not the recession and the economy generally???
Why is the corporate-media so determined to ignore our troubled economy?
377
The people who want a higher birth rate are capitalists who need a cheap labor pool. Look around the world and see how American Corporations pay $2 per day to make their products. Capitalism pits poor countries against poor countries to provide the cheapest labor. Look at how the right wing wants to force women to have children by opposing abortion rights. Who will buy all the goods produced by the corporations. Additionally the capitalists use debt to enslave the people to purchase goods they really don't need. Edward Bernay, the father of American propaganda and marketing explains how he psychologically manipulated the public to smoke cigarettes and consume products that are toxic to peoples health. Even our corporate food is toxic, loaded with preservatives and sugar and it is constituted with ingredients to make people unknowingly over eat and make them addicted to the garbage. So the smart people see the scam and realize that the oligarchy needs slaves. By not having children they reduce their long term indebtedness which gives them more free choices to live a non slave existence.
263
The Democmocrats want free community college /technical schools, combined with government help with childcare and a health care sysyem where we all pay in on a sliding scale, would increase fertiility.
This decline is one reason conservatives espouse no birth control , opprese womens rights, theyre afraid of people not their colour out pacing them in children.
Its so 1930s facist philosophy, including making others a villain.
This is all a huge energy shift, in the right way, a rebirth of strong , active liberal progessives, who will actually make us great again.
We were before , the people still are, so we can be again.
Vote in midterms for a Democrat.
145
For those who feel we need bodies to pay for Social Security in future years: The government could tax the 1% to put more into the fund, and without reducing benefits. What a thought!
377
It might be good for the environment, but not so good for society. There are myriad articles in the Times about countries (or even villages) where there is an overabundance of senior citizens and few young people. The picture is not so pretty. Do what you want, but beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
19
Immigrants are young. Welcome them.
185
As a woman who always wanted and had children and now grandchildren, I am sad that so many do not want them. Yes, they are a lot of work and there are economic and social costs. But they also bring a lot of joy and grandchildren are the best reward of all.
At the same time, I believe that every woman should decide for herself whether or not to have children. No one should be pushed into having children they don't want.
One option if money is the main issue might be to foster a child or two. The state provides health insurance and some maintenance money, while the child and foster parents form a family life that none would have otherwise.
If the United States stopped talking about "family values" and actually instituted family values like maternity leave and family leave for all, we would most likely have a higher birth rate. It works in many other countries and can work here too, but it requires society to adopt more forward-thinking legislation than is likely in the current political climate.
231
Of course children are hard work. Anything valuable is and children are invaluable. If you choose not to have children fine, but many of us who have children and now grandchildren, look upon these relationships as what has made our lives worthwhile. Children are our hope for the future and bring love, joy, humor, fun, spontenaiety, generosity of spirit, and a new way of looking at the world. No one who has had children thinks it is a walk in the park but the joys of raising children far outweigh any negatives in my opinion. I was a teacher as well as a mother for many years and after 47 years in the classroom I still think children are our greatest gift.
85
" No one who has had children thinks it is a walk in the park but the joys of raising children far outweigh any negatives in my opinion. I was a teacher as well as a mother for many years and after 47 years in the classroom I still think children are our greatest gift."
What is good and brings proximal joy and satisfaction to you, (an individual with desires not shared by everyone) is not necessarily what is good and best for a civilization, the environment or the future of the human race. the Joys are entirely personal, the negatives are very often shared with the rest of the community or world. There is where the value of population reduction overwhelmingly lies (with the world as a whole), regardless of the specific reasons others (who are not you in what brings them joy) state for their choice.
235
Bang on Dennis. And people think that childless people are selfish, seessh.
48
Its very hard to believe that Americans are slowing down the fertility rate because not to long ago, it didn't even cross peoples minds that the world one day could become over populated. Now there are several reasons people are slowing down. The reporters happened to ask some young adults for some reasons of why they don't want children. Most of them responded with close to the same responses, which are wanting more leisure and personal time, don't have a partner yet, partner doesn't want children, or met their partner to late. These responses were the highest voted reasons why the fertility rate is dropping. There are several more reasons why but they were voted least. I agree with the people that are thinking more about the world we live in. For example, some are worried about our economy. Some people are worried about limited resources and i agree at a certain extent. I believe that one day we will run out of resources, but you shouldn't hold back on having children and starting your life because you only live once so don't worry about whats going to happen years, maybe even centuries down the road. I found this article interesting because it could really help our economy in a way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-bab...
7
I feel afraid that the most meaningful, long-lasting thing that I have done with my body in this life has been saving all of these potential lives that I have carried inside of me, and whose numbers have slowly diminished, from having to have been born. I have little good that I could promise them. We should be at a pinnacle of reason right now; we have the technology to live well, the manpower to provide care and education for all, the scientific understanding of the consequences of our bad choices; and, yet, our laws and even the structure of our communities are designed to enrich and shelter only a few. Life itself, it seems, will always be cheap, and, given the chance to embrace reason and seek a good life, our kind would rather chase short-term fulfillment, choosing ease over simplicity, or, rather, passively not making any thoughtful choice at all.
I'm glad that this magnificent, young generation has the choice to forego having children and that so many are doing so.
148
All of my peers (now in our '60s) who had children, have had huge challenges placed before them--caused *by* those children--not the government, lack of financial resources or society. One friend's son (now adult) was born with intellectual & emotional disabilities. He scores just high enough ("Borderline") to be ineligible for admission to any community group home or program, yet low enough to be incapable of living independently. She will have to parent him until she is dead. Another friend has a son (now adult) born with Autism Spectrum Disorder, who also has Paranoia (dual diagnosis), which makes him ineligible for residential/work programs, so my friend will have to parent his son until he dies. Another friend has a son (now adult), who picked the "wrong" major in college, cannot find a job, and so malingers at home with his parents, due to student loan debt & the high cost of living in California. Another, a cousin, has a daughter born with Schizophrenia, so although he wants to retire, he cannot exit New York (expensive state), because he never knows when she will next escape from her group home or exercise her "right" to go off her meds and wind up on the street/in jail.
The lesson to be learned here, is once you have children, they are yours forever. I never had children because I did not want them. And so, of all of my peers, I am the only one who is FREE.
221
Regarding saving the planet: The number of children born annually has dropped from 4.2 million to 3.8 million. Meanwhile in India, 27 million are born each year. From a planetary standpoint, America is a drop in a bucket.
70
Did no one say they were worried about the overpopulation of the planet? That's why my wife and I had just one child in 1973.
106
According to the graphs in the article, 27% of those "having fewer children than their ideal number" cited overpopulation. Fourteen % of those planning to have no children cited overpopulation.
Typically people in this country do not think globally. For most overpopulation is something happening "over there", not an issue for everyone. For the hyper-christians there is no such thing as overpopulation, since God commanded humans to "be fruitful and multiply".
Tellingly (and thankfully), our birth rate has now fallen below the replacement rate. Studies show that as countries develop economically and technologically birth rates drop.
61
Who would want to bring a child into into Trump's America at this point? It's going down hill rapidly, cruelty is practiced by its leader, there is no moral leadership, education under Trump is being rapidly corrupted, and the environment is being deliberately poisoned and destroyed.
182
Have kids or don’t have kids: it’s your life. If you have kids, please try to be a good parent. It’s a lot of work. Kids aren’t mini accessories: they’re individual people. Don't ignore them while they scream in their strollers as you eat dinner at 9 pm in a fancy restaurant. Don’t let them run around the restaurant, or the movie theatre, or that family wedding, when they finally become ambulatory. Show up at school - I can’t tell you the number of teachers I know who never see some of the parents of their students. Teach the kids manners and to be aware of others, and that other people and animals have feelings and need respect. Remember that you’re raising human beings with a responsibility to society and that they need to function in that society. You may think they’re cute and sassy when they’re mouthing off yet again, but they won’t be so cute if they’re rude, lazy, off the wall, unemployable and still living with you when they’re 35.
If you choose not to be a parent or if you can’t be one for whatever reason: be a good person. Do good in the world. Reach out to others. Help as much as you can for as long as you can. Kids, the elderly, animals, the environment: they need you. You can live a full life and contribute to society in ways large and small. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
Everyone else: mind your own business. Mothers and mothers-in-law (because yes, it’s almost always you): no one owes you grandchildren. Get a life. Your kids will thank you.
347
The questionnaire didn't mention the future of our natural environment or climate concerns as a reason not to have children. I am a 27 year old female working in the environmental sustainability industry with mainly other 25-35 year olds, most of who do not have children. Many have mentioned their concern over rising heat and droughts, depletion of clean water, dwindling forests and pristine landscapes, oceans filled with plastic, toxic air, future climate refugees, etc. It is unsettling to imagine bringing children into a world with a dire future in regards to environmental health and well-being.
149
I second the comment from Chris. It looks like there was an option to in the survey to choose "Climate Change" as rationale for not having kids... however, environmental issues are much more than climate change. Climate change is already causing ripple effects and making some resources more scarce (in Alaska, we are experiencing collapsed fisheries this year because of changing ocean conditions that are because of climate change). But climate change itself is a function of a human population that is too large and consumes too much and the planet can't support it. I don't want to bring kids into a world where they have to fight for scraps-- either the scraps of good jobs, safe places to live, a place to live that isn't corrupted by human impact or other humans (crime and insecurity caused by want or scarcity), or even the political division that scarcity and scapegoating will inevitable cause (and is causing today).
I don't need kids to feel complete in my life and I don't think I'm being selfish by not bringing kids into the world to experience life.
131
A society that turns from childbearing is not a society "with more options." It is a society that does not believe in its own future.
44
Not really. It is a society that believes in long term goals and stewardship. High birth rates were driven by:
1. a need for more hands for labor on small subsistence farms
2. high infant/child mortality
3. lack of or religious interdiction against birth control
4. the traditional need for children to take care of parents.
Empirical studies clearly show as countries join the developed world birth rates drop. Not believing in one's own future does not play into it at all, in fact for some the reason NOT to procreate is hope for the future and a lack of hubris concerning their own genes or family name.
175
A society that invests as little as possible into making it easier to have children definitely does not have its future in mind. Where's the paid parental leave? Subsidized childcare? Laws against discriminating against parents, the majority of whom are women, who are perceived as less dedicated or less valuable and therefore penalized at work because they have to juggle work and family? Where's the real investment in our children's educational system, which will inevitably involve increasing the quality and pay structure for our teachers? Blaming individuals for recognizing that their procreative choices are limited by the economic structure in which we live helps not at all.
82
Sure
No, it is a society that would be smart enough to know that there are TOO many humans & less would smart
64
I had wanted children very much. It didn't happen but I'm not unhappy. In fact, I'm glad. We have destroyed the Earth's future and crippled nature. Bringing another human being into this mess is the last thing I'd want to do to him or her.
122
I disagree that we should prioritize policies to encourage more procreation. Just the opposite. Two reasons.. one stated in the article: “There are no high-fertility countries that are gender equal.” The other, barely alluded to in the article is that the proliferation of the human species is causing a major extinction event for all other species, and the probable collapse of the biosphere. Unfortunately the world economy is a global Ponzi scheme, predicated on more growth and more people. We need instead, to establish a sustainable equilibrium, or we will breed ourselves into oblivion.
160
I have two kids. My advice to younger women in the US is not to have any. I was lucky to have a supportive extended family who did free babysitting and supported us financially. But still, I wasted a lot of time in my 20s on diapers and parent-teacher conferences. And what for? I love my sons dearly but reading some of the comments extolling the joys or parenthood, I want to laugh. Unconditional love? All love is conditional. Never being alone? A nightmare. Support in your old age? Doubtful. Life is short and there are so many wonderful things to do besides waking up in the middle of the night because your baby is screaming or your teenager has not come home on time. And I am incredibly lucky with my kids who grew up to be loving and conscientious, as opposed to some of my friends’ whiny, spoiled, entitled offspring. If your life is empty, having kids won’t give it meaning. And if it’s full, why do you need children?
278
High student debt is a problem, and most 18 year olds who start college have no idea what it means to actually rack up so much debt. We should put stringent limits on student borrowing, and cap interest rates. If you leave college with little debt, then you can afford to raise a child on one income. That eliminates the need for child care. We have also lost sight of the fact that the expensive wedding and the best house in the best neighborhood and the best car and fancy classes and vacations are not what a family needs-rather, it's our time and undivided attention. Used books, used toys are perfectly fine for kids. Let's stop complaining about the state of the Earth and recycle! A newborn needs about $25 worth of plain white onesies and some cloth diapers, and that's it. Use cloth diapers at a fraction of the cost of disposables. Nurseries, fancy clothes, bouncy chairs and swings, all unnecessary. Use a bedsheet to create a wearable sling-no stroller necessary (babies are most soothed by their parents' heartbeat). Later, buy a used stroller at a garage sale or check Craigs list! Breast feed and save hundreds on formula while creating a lifetime bond with your little one not to mention unparalleled health benefits. Use the free resources available-the playgrounds, the library, the town parks. Put your tax dollars to work! And when you experience the joy, the challenge, and the meaning that a child creates in your life, you will never look back.
22
I left college with no debt, and I make decent money. Yet I still cannot afford to raise a child on my own. My after-tax income will not pay for daycare and a 2-bedroom apartment in a decent neighborhood. Not everyone is waiting for the slick cars and fancy homes in order to have kids. We’re waiting because financially, there’s no other option.
Used books and toys are fine, and kids shouldn’t always get whatever they want. But buying something new every now and again is okay. Unless you’re really cash-strapped, it’s perfectly fine to not furnish the nursery exclusively in hand-me-downs or secondhand purchases.
A stroller is necessary, particularly as the kid gets heavier. And it’s ok to invest in a decent sling. The last thing a frazzled mom, new or otherwise, needs to do is try to make a safe, decent sling out of a bedsheet. If you have time for that, go with God.
The same goes for cloth diapers. I’m all for helping the environment, but diaper blowouts are a real thing, and the last thing overworked parents need on their everlasting to-do lists is the task of washing cloth diapers.
Stop glorifying breastfeeding. It’s healthy but it’s not the only way to bond with your baby. Some women can’t breastfeed, and therefore formula is their only option. Few workplaces these days offer designated areas for nursing mothers to pump. In some offices, women are spending their lunch hours pumping in the bathroom.
And people can have meaningful lives that don’t include children.
108
There is absolutely no money.
I graduated with honors from Duke University and went on to receive an MA from Columbia University. I work in tech at a large and growing company, with a highly specialized skill set.
And still there is no money.
I can barely afford to live comfortably from month to month, let alone save anything for the future.
The unemployment numbers are lies.
152
Given the current regressive administration, I am surprised that more young people did not cite climate change, global instability, and related factors as reasons for not having children. My spouse and I decided against being parents a few administrations ago and have never regretted it. Our key reasons were both personal and global. There are many ways to have children in one's life without being parents.
66
My twenty-something son and his wife live outside of the U.S. now and I made a terrible slip last month when we were visiting them. As we were discussing the timing of when they're planning to have children, I said "well, whatever you do, don't have kids in the U.S." Then I slapped my hands over my mouth and said "I take it back!" But it was too late. I said it -- and it's not as if it hadn't occurred to them already, either.
I would love it if my son and his wife lived closer to us. But their standard of living would be much, much lower if they lived in the U.S. Not all millennials want to work for Google. They both went to ivy league schools, and they both work for nonprofits. I don't know how they will afford to support children in the U.S. And my daughter-in-law feels skeptical about coming back to the U.S. in the era of Trump because her skin is brown.
I admit -- I am still traumatized by our own child-rearing experience in the U.S. Sure, I remember many joyful things about raising our kids, but I also remember being worried about money ALL THE TIME. There is very little support for working parents in the U.S. Everything is hard, and everything is expensive.
We will, of course, try to support our millennial children if and when they have kids. But the fact is, we're still working, too. We only recently bought our first home. We couldn't afford it when we were raising kids because we were still paying off our own student loans.
122
"Americans Are Having Fewer Babies"
Is that a bad thing?
If every pair of parents had no more than 2 kids, the world would be a better place within a few generations. Not going to happen of course because people. want. kids.
65
Basically, when given a choice, women are voting with their feet. It doesn't surprise me. I'm in my 60s now and - don't get me wrong - I'm glad I had my 2 much loved children 30 years ago; yes it has been rewarding, stressful, fascinating, nerve wracking, expensive, occasionally hilarious and often fulfilling, but it's also been unrelenting hard work, and it's taken me literally decades to rebuild my career. And now I'll be working many more years to make up the lost $$, and to be able to even think about retirement.
I've had to completely reinvent myself to get back into a competitive job market, and I do sometimes wonder when - if - I ever get to enjoy the fruits of all this effort?
I work with mostly much younger women, few of whom have children. I completely understand why they don't. If I was 30 now would I still have children? Possibly not. The natural environment is falling apart in front of us and Planet Earth is a crowded place.
If there is a demographic 'gap', the obvious answer is immigration (and I'm an immigrant myself.)
76
Okay, who put the list of questions together. I've not seen such a biased poll since Hillary was running for President. What a joke. And stop pretending that this is somehow unique - except for Africans, middle easterners, and most hispanics - the whole world is having less babies. It's the uneducated (too many women have no access in third world countries) and poor that have the largest families. Not exactly a great idea.
29
I am not exactly understand what you object. Seems to me, you are not objecting the fact that there is decrease in fertility. Just because it is a problem of other countries as well, it doesn't mean America should ignore the problem. Unless, of course, you think that decreasing birth rate is a good thing for American society.
4
Please quantify exactly why you feel this is a biased poll? It is asking for reasons for a specific set of behaviors.
Are you objecting to the sampling protocol?
Are you objecting because it does not include meaningless choices?
Do you even understand what constitutes bias in a poll?
As for your "Africans, middle easterners and most hispanics" comment, I suspect you have very little understanding of the differences in birth rate based on class, urban vs rural background, education level and so on. You imply very strongly that you feel Africans, Middle Easterners and most Hispanics are poor and uneducated. At least that is the implication if one assumes you understand sentence and paragraph structure.
34
I can fully understand young people's concerns today. I'm a 68yr old father of three children. When my children were young and growing my wife did not work outside the home. She stayed home to raise the children. When they were about 10 she found partime work that enabled her to see them off in the mroning and be there when they got off the school bus. We lived modestly never bought a home, but put three of them through college. Today with prices of rent, health carte, schools and just day to day living two salaries are a Must.
63
Basically they are penalized financially for having children, along with having to pay to support them, without any real help from society and the government.
You know, how the right wingers/Republicans want it to be. That's why they want to force women to give birth, because that, combined with no help, = women not being able to be in business and politics, leading to men owning and running everything.
100
This is not a world, or a country, into which I would want to bring an innocent child.
51
Innocent child? How about a guilty child?
23
However people want to live their life is fine with me. But if it's to save the planet from environmental destruction, don't then write about how you could now afford a much bigger home and travel all over the world and buy a whole bunch of stuff you couldn't otherwise afford. Big homes are not good for the environment; ditto jumbo jets. And that stuff you bought? It will end up in the ocean. The smugness is a bit much .One or two kids are known are "replacement rate" anyway. The births are on par with the deaths. It's really more than that which makes a problem.
30
I'll be 45 next month, married two years, no kids - having a puppy is stressful enough. Raising children is so much different nowadays vs how/when my folks raised me. I was only ever in one sport or activity at a time, and we played outside with the neighborhood kids all summer. No play dates, lessons, travel teams. And we were disciplined accordingly. No times outs, just one swift swat to the rear and we knew it was time to cut it out. It wasn't abuse, it was effective parenting - nothing like what I see today.
73
Sure. IF you see everything through your lens of a zero-sum-game men vs. women, you win-I lose-identity politics above all, everything is about power, money and control. This is in the richest country ever known...Never act unselfishly, never give to another, never subordinate your own desires for another's good, let alone your own family, tradition be damned, smash the patriarchy!!! Parenting takes lots of sacrifice, raising a generation less selfish than this one requires examples of unselfishness which are too few at the moment.
7
Interesting that ‘because I don’t want my perineum ribbed, my organs displaced, or a lifetime of incontinence,’ are on the list.
58
*not* on the list
8
Yes, near the top of my list too!
My first job as a surgical tech was in a high-risk labor/delivery unit in the mid-80s. Seeing up close the physical destruction an actual birth causes a woman's body was the first solid brake applied to my wishy-washy ruminations on motherhood. It was horrific. Many were transferred to this hospital from smaller hospitals because of maternal or fetal distress due to labor complications. Some were able birth vaginally but many went on to surgery to save both lives.
We forget that birthing babies was a major cause of female mortality for most of history but those risks still play out every day for some women. Imagine the day, fast approaching, when women start dying again because Republicans value tax cuts over the health care infrastructure that actually supports their supposed "pro-life" values.
But in the end, it was male doctors' power over women that did much to push me away from becoming a mother. I once saw the lead nurse moving in and out of a room where her sister was laboring with stacks of warm wet towels. Since it was not the norm, I asked her what she was doing. She replied, "helping my sister avoid an episiotomy." She was using warm compresses and massage to gently open her perineum over the hours while the norm was for doctors to just show up in the last 10 minutes to cut their way through the birth canal. Birthing and raising children is nasty business under male rule and my body wanted nothing to do with it!
88
Childcare (daycare) for working parents is 1000.-1600. a month. A nanny for day hours only in urban areas is 20-25 an hour. Today's higher income jobs expect travel and over 40 hours a week. Put that with college debt and housing costs ----crazy. These are people who would be happy with 1-3 kids.
And like another commented, we have religions so obsessed with high numbers of children that the earth cannot sustain these populations.
37
Diana--Spending so little time with their own kids, they don't have time for kids...OR puppies, either. Both need a lot of attention. But, I guess you'll have to settle for a less luxurious life. Depends on what's more important to you. What we really need is more legal immigration, and better education.
6
Diana--Adoption is another option. There are MILLIONS of parentless children in the US, today. If you really want to love and raise a child, this is an excellent way to do it.
9
No doubt the Trump administration's attack on women's rights will 'fix' this.
31
Team No Kids! I like my freedom and have never had an urge to raise a child. If children are what you want, and that makes you happy, then go for it. I don't have a single voluntary parenting bone in my body.
64
I chose not have children, proudly, and I'd do it again. There were just too many interesting things in life to explore before I got strapped down with a child I never really craved.
And spare me the judgement about being "selfish" I've received here in past comments sections. Until I see the White men of this country act in unselfish ways themselves by raising and spending the taxes needed to educate ALL children and assure they receive health care, I'm certainly not going to rush out and produce children for them to exploit and neglect.
This planet already has too many people. And in this country, too many can barely afford to live, let alone breed. If this is such a concern for demographers, government officials, and White men, they can do what other countries do: create the social support policies parents need, build up the infrastructure needed for schools and childcare especially in low income areas, and pay parents a healthy cash bonus for each child.
Or...do what this country has always done when it needed population:
WELCOME IMMIGRANTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD!
That was, is, and always will be the American way to population greatness.
118
This is good news, given the over-population of Mother Earth and the damage this does. More people means the need to grow more food which requires more vehicle pollution to transport it. For those non-vegetarians, this also results in more grazing stock raised as food. This adds to an increase in methane in the atmosphere and more animal waste ending up in the watersheds.
But here is another thing: Has anyone noticed that, the legislation for increased "child tax credits" comes from House and Senate members who are also parents to very large families?
While I am keen on assisting the poor to feed their children, I believe this tax credit should be limited to two children per household. The idea of families growing like minks because of religious doctrine against birth control, tells me they want the American taxpayers to pay for their obsessive indulgences in procreation.
Yes, I know, the poor are hobbled by a lack of access to family planning information. Without that information, and access to birth control, they may find themselves with more children than they wanted or could afford to care for. (Little wonder the anti-Planned Parenthood faction has so negatively affected the poor.)
But it is the right-wing Christian legislators with large families who insist on restricting that access to their constituents. And those legislators also have substantial incomes (at our expense) as members of the House and Senate.
62
Another commenter pointed out that few comments have mentioned the joy of family and unconditional love.
Everyone is complaining about housing costs, declining wages, and student loans. It is true that these are burdens. But to a great degree, these are also excuses. If having a family is important to you, you will rearrange your life to make it happen.
My children have enriched my life beyond all of my expectations. I can't imagine life without them. I hope no one is dissuaded from having a family by reading these dour comments.
35
Declining wages, and housing costs are a real thing. WHERE are you supposed to live with these children?HOW are you supposed to feed them, clothes them and make sure they get a decent education? These are issues that are part of the decision making process. Childcare eats up a good portion of a parents income, most mothers I know get UNPAID maternity leave. I'm not sure how much "rearranging"' can be done. the facts or the facts!
59
If $1,000 flies out of your bank account to pay off student loans you have to take that into consideration. There's no way to magically make that disappear. You can't even discharge student loans in bankruptcy!
35
Family is the bedrock of civilization. This will never change. The commenters are a self-selected group who responded to this article because it validates their life. Last week there was an article about the joys of grandparenthood and the vast majority of commenters wrote about how much joy and love grandchildren bring them. And a couple of years ago the Times flat out asked its reader why did we have kids. Pretty much all of us said, because LOVE.
11
I turn 30 in two months. My husband (one year older) and I will celebrate our second wedding anniversary in October. We didn't live together prior to marriage for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to working in cities that were at least 65 miles apart. For us, kids are a "probably yes," but we're also really enjoying our time when it's JUST US. I have friends from college who have 1-3 kids, and while I don't think they did it wrong, I can't imagine having a child starting kindergarten in the fall. Some days I wonder if maybe fur-babies will be enough? But then another part of me worries that if we wait too much longer, I'll be 40 and pregnant (not my personal ideal) if I'm not careful. There's no easy answer, especially as a woman who would love to stay at home until the kids are school aged and then re-enter the workforce. But what company will hire a 40-something woman who's been out of work 5+ years to care for her kids vs a recent grad who is dirt cheap? Maybe I'm guilty of being a "sparkle snowflake millennial," and need to get my head out of the clouds. But as I said, no easy answers unless you're insanely wealthy (and don't need to work) or don't care who raises your kids.
62
If you want my unsolicited advice I'd say don't drop out of the workforce! I'm GenX (52); I've seen a lot of smart, educated people--and not just women--lose traction due to employment interruption for child- or eldercare issues. In a couple of cases it was impossible to return to any kind of meaningful employment.
59
I am not a US citizen and I don't live in the US now, but I have in the past and I have a number of US friends. I'm just here to point out how baffling it is to me that there is vitually zero parental paid leave there. I've known of people who've had to take a second mortgage on their house just to have a child.
Even Democrats seem to find it far-fetched, and every time the topic comes up all these studies on how it would almost collapse the economy are pulled up.
Believe me, once it's established across the board, the market self-regulates and it works.
Then again, I guess it touches on the larger, almost unsolvable US issue of healthcare; and, to an even larger degree, the willingness to cooperate in a society as opposed to it being every man for himself.
120
You said it just right, Olivia. There is a large contingent in America that labels ANY kind of help program from the government -- like subsidized child care, mandatory paid parental leave, etc. -- as "socialism" rather than just the kind of community support that allows citizens to thrive. Under this group's philosophy, only the well-off should get actual healthcare, should have children at all, should go to college...and the rest of us should just shut up and work the salt mines and be happy for our bowls of porridge while the upper-classes benefit from all of that labor and convince themselves that THEY "earned" all of that wealth.
63
Hello! Another Chilean here. I need to say that even when we have paid parental leave (6+ months) our fertility rate is 1.3, even lower than the USA. I think that the real reason why people are having less children is because as long as women continue to be hurt by having them, fertility rates will continue to decline.
When a woman has a child she suffers career-wise, time-wise and economically. Until not so long ago marriage and motherhood were the only way of fulfillment a woman had. Now that we have so many more options, I'm not surprised many of us are opting out of children.
60
As a 69 year old black woman raised in a upper middle class home, I am the oldest of 5 girls. Three of us married and had 7 children. Two got Masters degrees. I was a housewife for 14 years and now have been in my job which I love for 31 years. My degree had nothing to do with it, either. Just started climbing the walls when our youngest started school all day. We have three. Yes, it is more expensive to raise children but think of it, if wages had risen with the cost of living, there would be no problem. Our eldest, our son is 45 and was over 6'3" at 12, has one daughter, 7 and when he was born formula cost 3 cans for a $1.00. His baby sister is 37 and she and her husband have 6, the youngest is 9 months and formula costs up to $40.00 for the powdered which lasts about a week. I won't get into food. 5 of us ate on about $100.00 week. My daughter's family spends $300+ a week and the idiot's in congress said what? Their oldest will be 16 next month and he is over 6'2", already. Lord you do not want to know. The best thing we did was instill education. None of us 12 had college debt except for any post grad done. I just wonder where each generation would actually be if they were paid what they deserved.
I saw a commercial a while back. Two young couples, buying a car, home. Shown waiting at a light a few years later, the white couple had a dog and the Latin couple had a child in the back seat. Car commercial.
30
Is it a good idea to have 6 kids? Just asking. The cost of just about everything, but especially food, has sky rocketed but the government doesn't count that anymore when they determine inflation. That changed in the early 90s, and really is at the root cause of much of our talk about pay. When the government tells you inflation is only 2%, but its really 20%+, then you have a real disconnect. If they published the real number, salaries would go up as that's what business uses to determine annual percentage increases. Root cause goes back to the early nineties and NO ONE wants to talk about it.
24
With all respect, perhaps there are medical reasons you didn't breastfeed, but you have two formula-making machines on your chest that are in fact better for your baby than formula and can be pumped for when you are not there. Just saying. That's a lot of money you could have saved.
10
Women have the choice now Let's hope it stays that way.
79
My daughter does not want to work as hard as I did. I suspect many of the women in their 20s and 30s feel the same. I am a professional at the top of my career who also had to "do" swim team, band, sleepovers, costumes, dinner (every night), bedtime, run a household, keep a job. My husband died young. You never know if you will become a single mom. There are no mythical grandparents who jump in and help or even write checks. The schools think we are in the 1950s with mom who have copious amounts of time. The schooldays, girl scouts, etc. are not organized around anyone's work schedule. So who does it all? The mom. I love my daughter. I loved her growing up time. I love my career. I was exhausted. All the time. She doesn't want that.
151
Why only "my partner doesn't want children"? Did they offer the option of "I don't want children"?
12
I think "No desire for children" covers that.
15
"No desire for children" is the fourth reason listed why people don't want kids.
11
I always assumed I would have kids, but then I blinked and was 30 years old. Single, with a crummy job with no security, I put it off. The recession was the final nail on the coffin. I was getting too old but now unemployed with no partner or family for support it was not going to happened. The recession ends I have money now but no eggs.
34
Intelligent people - people who can project ahead are having fewer children as they can see how expensive housing is as governments are down-zoning land to prevent the world from becoming one huge suburb. This is why we need a third party because if you are against abortion, you lose a massive female voting block. Even if women are financially conservative you won't get many of their votes. And on the flip side if you are for choice - you lose a massive religions vote. Sad......
11
There are thousands of children in foster care looking for a forever family. Anyone complaining that women need to have more babies is a hypocrite, or simply looking to place more burdens on women.
46
Could all the economic reasons listed by the respondents also collapse, at least partially, into too much of my/our money is being taken in taxes for programs that will not benefit my own child? This is a huge elephant in the room that no-one, neither "conservative" nor "liberal", will discuss. Our insane use of categorical benefits specifically penalizes one group (college-educated, responsible people i.e. the typical NYT reader) in favor of every type of ne'er do well, special snowflake, illegal immigrant, you name it, and the bloated government agency created to "address" the "problem". I can comprehend old style capitalism where you made your own way or sought charity from private sources, with the understanding that you would reciprocate with behavioral change. I can comprehend socialism where at least if you pay high taxes, you get all the benefits as well without paying extra. I cannot comprehend our particular American insanity which creates winners and losers, mostly losers in one way or another.
15
Paul, the taxes in this country are at historically low levels. I really don't think taxes prevent people from having children.
On the other hand, financial insecurity, including getting laid off repeatedly through no fault of one's own, is a strong disincentive to have children.
31
Maybe your other, recently published, article talking about widespread discrimination in the workforce toward pregnant women, the "earnings penalty," and the indoctrination that motherhood essentially paramounts to failure has something to do with it.
The Me Too moment and feminism have left out one important thing, and that is what is fundamentally unique to being a women; motherhood... rather than occupying a place of honor and prestige, it is devalued on all fronts, economic just being symptomatic of the attitudes toward it, and thus women are penalized (economically, socially, and otherwise), and that is institutionalized sexism. Women are relatively equal, until they have children, then all bets are off.
I am a single mom and I have experienced this first hand, I had to pause my career to care for a very sick child, and trying to get back in the work force has taken 3 years, despite success in my career, but care-taking is not valued or considered experience, so the years spent caring for my child are not assets but deficits to potential employers.
If "equality" only works if we remove motherhood from the equation, and economically penalize women for having children, then fundamentally something went very wrong. Let's hope rather then abandon the deep joys of motherhood, the next generation of women embraces it and finds a way to take that true step to equality and valuing motherhood and caregiving as part of our social structure, financially and otherwise.
36
The government needs to indebt more people, get cracking folks!
12
Financial insecurity may be altering women's decision to have children. But another article in The Times pointed out the birth rate is lowest among white women, and it is much higher for African-American and Latino women. Maybe financial insecurity really is the answer. But why is financial insecurity higher among white women than women of color?
10
The number of babies one has is tied to their education level. The more educated, the fewer babies. But, there is also the caveat that we pay the poor women to have babies (as long as they claim there is no husband or live in boyfriend). So the 'parents' see this as another source of income; and the kids are not getting the money spent on them. This is not conjecture, but a fact.
37
Anyone choosing to have children is doing them an immense disservice, unless they are a a high-earning professional couple, rich, or, ironically, lower-class.
The upper-middle class has allied with the rich to wage war on the other middle classes and the working classes. The goal is to choke off competition for their offspring by making child-care and education prohibitively expensive for the other classes.
They still want a large pool of consumers around, and so the poor will continue to be subsidized to breed, but the poor aren't a threat.
If we want the middle-classes to have kids again will will have to wage war on the professionals. They are the enemy. They've stolen the democratic party and turned it into an ineffective and useless political force that cares more about illegal immigrants and identities than wages, employment, and education. All fine and dandy to the professionals, because they are highly compensated and just as heavily invested in capitalism as their rich masters.
25
You at absolutely right about them wanting to ensure that other children do NOT enjoy the advantages their own issue do. Once upon a time I would have said you were being paranoid until I got to know a group of Republicans on a social basis. My god, the horrible things that I’ve heard come out of their mouths....
28
Given the earth's population crisis which generates environmental degradation, continuous warfare, destabilizing mass migrations, hunger, epidemics .... The idea that child bearing should be economically rewarded through tax credits and such is ludicrous. Child bearing is a privilege - not a right, one that requires sufficient time, sacrifice, emotional maturity and resources. The one positive of Chairman Mao's reign was the one child policy. Imagine the world today if China had not conformed. In the meantime, most of the world's religions still promote endless procreation. The "good" pope could do much to mitigate the violence in Latin America with a thoughtful family planning message instead of proselytizing in Africa for more converts.
34
I’m floored at the lack of awareness and critical thinking displayed by a number of commenters convinced that a decision not to have children is: selfish, somehow a byproduct of feminism, not at all related to lack of social support in the US (or that having kids is totally doable and fine because it worked out okay generations ago, when there was often very little choice involved). For goodness’ sake, get in touch with logic and get with it, or accept that this generation’s challenges aren’t yours to criticize if you can’t actually understand them. For decades, people voted for the policy and conditions that created the mess the country is in, but seem to possess stunning inability to connect the dots. Or educate themselves about the actual implications of a vote, especially—and this is important—how it will really affect people who are not them, to begin with.
This is the most depressing thing about the Unites States to me. Vast swaths of its people are electively myopic. Nostalgically, ideologically attached to an outdated way of living and governing obviously long past its own operational capacity in a bloated and crippled nation, they reject logical solutions just because.
I don’t have kids yet, I don’t know when my husband and I will be financially secure enough to. We’re still young and definitely not losing sleep over it. I feel a thousand times more relieved about the prospect of parenthood up here, than I would if we were living over the border.
45
No news here. I hear this all the time from friends. Both partners have to work in today's economy (in addition, they may both WANT to work). The cost of child care is beyond the reach of most young individuals or couples --- over $1,000 per month is about average until they are old enough for kindergarten. The situation would be different if we had either nationalized child care or a subsidy for child care.
But really, a fertility rate that is slightly under replacement rate would be a good thing for a while. I understand that many segments of the economy and government work best with a model that is based on a constantly expanding population, but please, create some new models. The planet has enough people as it is, and a slightly diminishing population would not be a bad thing.
46
This isn’t hard. It’s not the 50’s where your expected to have children. It’s financially infeasible for most. Look at the instability of our country, let alone the world. When you have our President telling a dictator my nukes are bigger than yours, why on Earth would you bring your children into this. Last but not least, our President, Congress and EPA Chief could care less if there’s clean water and air for generations to come. How many more answers do you need.
60
All of these articles ask 20 somethings about their plans to have children.
Relax - many of them will have them in their 30s.
I am 35. No one wanted children 5 years ago - no one even though about it. Now most in my social circle have a kid or two, but they had them in their 30s. Many who had one kid in their early 30s are still hoping for another in their mid-late 30s.
I do not yet have kids even though I'm married, because husband dear wanted to wait. Now we have been trying for a while and no luck, but he keeps refusing to go to a fertility doc. I have other friends in a similar situation - they either never met a partner to begin with or their make partner keeps stalling on kids. My brother's wife is also 35 and only now did he finally agree to start trying for a kid - no luck yet either. Many of us are facing fertility treatment down the road.
I only know of one friend who definitely does not want any kids - all other women do. Its the men that won't cooperate.
Having said that, no one wants more than 2 kids for sure.
17
As a 27 year old woman I want to thank the older childless women who have commented to share their experiences. It's so good to hear from you all about how fulfilling your lives have been and how confident you feel in your decisions despite societal/family/etc. pressure. Those of us who wish to forge our own paths but face doubt from external sources need to hear your stories, and I appreciate all of you being strong models for us who wish to follow in your footsteps.
102
Hear this 54 year-old childless-by-choice woman roar: "No children ever!"
However, I am a fabulous aunt to six wonderful nieces and nephews and a huge help to their parents whenever they need me. I've gone from babysitting and laundry/dishes duty at family gatherings or days a kid is home sick from school to being favorite aunt who's seen the world and has a crazy pet pigeon.
Despite the unprecedented level of misogyny thrown at Hillary Clinton from the left as well the right, she was absolutely right in her statement:
"It takes a village to raise a child."
That statement will live on, far beyond her and today's petty grievance and purity voters because it's flat-out true. It also gave me permission to not be the parent but "village support" to my family, which includes my aging parents. I find such a role has been the answer to naysayers and immensely satisfying.
There are so many other ways to give back to family and society beyond reproducing. Just find your own way, love and support the family you already have, and live life to its fullest!
351
48, child-free, and happy as a clam.
22
I don't remember when the "aha!" moment occured for me, but in essence I recognized that as an aunt I could bring things to the niece/nephew relationship that their parents could not, namely, validation by a non-parent adult, time to spend together that isn't "stealing energy from" running a household, and the ability to be a safe place to ask life's big questions.
And now, with the advent of grand nieces and nephews, I (hopefully), get to do it all over again!
26
My wife and I married very late because both of us gave the most significant decades of our lives in unpaid celibate service to our fellow man. Not having children is part of the deal.
We gave up that part so that others could have more fruitful lives. We were able to do this because we had in our youth crossed over the threshold of hope. I am aware deeply, having lived a vow of poverty for a good period of my life of what it is to have nothing, not even owning the clothes on my back. I was much freer and happier than my peers.
So, I propose what has worked for my wife and I and covers most of the fears in the lists in this article. Have faith in God and cross over the threshold of faith. It a great challenge but it has great rewards for those who have the courage.
My wife and I now live a quite diferent life, but we have not regressed from the threshold of hope. We face all of the other challenges that others face, having decades fewer to prepare for retirement, but are quite happy. I quote one of the greatest people of our times, John Paul II: "Do not be afraid!"
12
The article seems more of a "let's look at the symptoms" rather than, let's start pointing some fingers. Let's start with the New York Times. Ever read "The Hunt"? Here's every single "Hunt" column in its basic form: One or two people (usually Millennials) complain bitterly about how, although fully employed, they can't realize their dream of "something in the $800K or $900K range near museums and cafes" even though they have parents willing to "help out."
And for those of us who are still living in rented rooms because we don't have mommy, daddy, daddy's girlfriend, mommy's second husband, and a six-figure income, the sense of active smack across the face grows each day.
Why doesn't the Times start digging into the fundamental immorality of a system in which it is pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to own any living space unless the deck was already stacked in your favor from the outset? When was the last time the Times did such an article? Whom did it name? Market forces? Nonsense. There is NO affordable housing in this city that isn't either promised ahead of time to someone with connections or completely unsafe to live in.
But please, keep waving surveys in our faces that tell us how it's too expensive to have children.
39
I didn't have kids because I didn't want them. Full stop.
I also don't want to summit Everest, own a great Pyrenees, or be a yoga teacher. But no one ever asks me to justify those (or a large number of other) life decisions. Just the baby one. Like I am obligated to provide a "good enough" reason for not wanting kids.
But of course it would be considered rude if I went around demanding that people explain what their reasons were for having kids.
149
I often think people who ask these questions are envious because they didn't necessarily want children but felt obligated to do so, by society, peer pressure or their family.
46
"...it would be considered rude if I went around demanding that people explain what their reasons were for having kids."
Wrong.
After a while, I absolutely started reversing the question with "Why?" and "Why did you decide to have children?" And very quickly the questioners would realize that the question of children is a very personal issue unique to each person with no easy answer that doesn't smack of societal enforcement.
When I ask why, the questioner usually stumbles and stutters before saying the usual stuff like "it's so fulfilling" to which I answer, "Really not interested in that type of fulfillment". Or "Don't you want someone there for you in old age?" to which I answer, "I have nieces, nephews, and four younger sisters. In my Hispanic/European immigrant family, family sticks together and takes care of all generations, period. Don't need my own children for that."
And when I ask, "Why did you choose to have children?" it becomes painfully clear to them that societal norms are a greater force in the matter than what each person truly wants for themselves. In the later years of my reproductive cycle, I become bolder in my rejection of the prying, judgemental personal questions, found that I often "won" the debate, and walked away with renewed pride and conviction that I chose the right path for myself. I also think many of the questioners realized they actually envied me a bit. No better feeling than being the envy of others!
38
Seems obvious to me, women seem to have children for reasons only a female would understand. As a senior in retirement, I noted Grandmothers, overwhelming number one priority is, to live near their grandchildren. Sure it is expensive to raise children. Sure it is hard to work and raise a family, but again those who choose to have a family put those excuses aside.
5
‘Reasons only a woman can understand.’ You act like we’re a separate species. I assume many women have children for the same reason men do.
PS I’m a woman and I’ve never wanted children.
25
I decided to not have children at a very early age, for some of the reasons people give here. It was unusual in my era to not have children, but I never regretted my decision.
There is little or no help for single parents today, despite the fact that it takes two incomes just to make it. We have an administration that is determined to remove birth control and abortion as options for women who simply can't afford to have a child, and to criminalize them for making the choice.
I am glad women have the choice now, but we will have to keep the fight up or it will be lost to us.
63
The irony of 2days World is that those with few cattle or live in a congested land with limited or poorly developed resources tend to have lots of children, on the average.Couples in domains where there is stability, access to resources for sending kids to schools and provide with at least basics shouldn't shy away from adding infant visitors to our planet.Of course somehow they have to try their best to raise up right and reasonably educated kids.Well educated enough individuals who have developed their power to reason are a Non-Threat to others, our world is in dire need of more and more such citizens of the respective domain they occupy and much much less or no more additional ones with loony tendencies.Parents and leaders are required to do the guiding and children shaped the right way are sources of Joy or do not necessarily suck happiness from life.TMD.
1
I totally agree with the idea that raising kids today is insanely expensive but one of the reasons why it has become so expensive is because what used to be luxuries are now considered necessities in a lot of families. The idea of saying no to a child who wants to join multiple activities is seen as mean and not allowing them to explore or some other claptrap.
Travel sports teams with expensive gear, costly hobbies, top designer clothing and shoes, the most up to date smartphone, multiple cars in the household, kids not having to share a room, birthday celebrations at various venues, going out to eat often, paid activities rather than board games at home, getting the newest video game on day one, etc. All of those things chew up a budget in no time but it seems that some parents would rather complain how expensive it is to raise kids rather than realize that a lot of the budget strain in the household is self-inflicted.
43
There's some truth in this post. Everyone focuses on the huge cost of daycare, but costs remain significant even after kids are in school. And it's because of everyone's expectations. In the area where I live, it's just expected that you will provide a large birthday party for your kid every year, sign them up for multiple activities, send them to camps during the summer, and contribute to your school's PTO on a regular basis. Activities wind up costing more than the actual lesson prices because you also have to buy uniforms, costumes, gear, etc., and pay special fees for competitions, tests, travel, etc. It all becomes very expensive, even if you're not buying the latest technology and toys for your kids (we don't). Plus, the timing of when lessons/matches/competitions happen can additionally lead to higher food costs, as for example, it's often easier to get dinner out before a lesson rather than trying to cook, wash dishes, etc., beforehand. When all the other families you know are doing this kind of stuff, the general expectation is that you'll do the same.
27
um. its a necessity in the US today to go back to work when your BABY is 3 weeks old. that has nothing to do with sports teams or elective activities. that has to do with our society's priorities.
20
In short, younger people aren't having kids because they're being smart and responsible. I know this goes against the "Millennials are so entitled" narrative, but it's the simple truth. They're embracing the phrase "planned parenthood", not just as an organization but as a philosophy, and using birth control and abstinence to ensure that they don't end up in over their heads.
Not having kids is financially responsible, environmentally responsible, and also according to lots of psych research leads to a happier family life. If we're short on population for some reason, all we'd need to do is welcome another wave of the huddled masses yearning to breath free. And I can say as a 37-year-old childless person that I have no regrets about that decision.
91
I get really tired of the same old rhetoric on the topic of the choices around parenting.
1) I can be a feminist and a mother. I can also be an environmentalist and a mother. Having children is neither selfish or unselfish in and of itself.
2) There is a biological basis to have children. I get it, we are such an intelligent species we can make choices. Still, please stop acting like those of us who choose to have children (especially more than 2) are irresponsible and less intelligent.
3) Someone needs to have the babies. Unless you want extinction. Now I'm not saying this is an excuse to be pregnant for 20 years straight, but childbirth is required for, y'know, species continuation.
4) I am all for affordable childcare, paid family leave, etc. but can we stop buying into the consumerism and Western beliefs of what our children "need?" Our children do not need parent-funded $100k undergrad degrees. Our children do not need you to keep up with the Joneses. And this may be blasphemy to many of you, but our children do not need to live at home past 18. They're called roommates. Geographic mobility is another option.
Yes, things will be different from the way you grew up, and the values you absorbed at that time. But there is a new normal, and some of us are finding a way to make this work. With career, kids, compassion, and sanity. There is hope - you have to create it.
22
You’re kidding right, humans extinct? All 7.5 BILLION ? Not likely...
44
Your disdain for children living at home past 18 is not only ridiculous but a concept that was totally unknown to most of humanity before 20th Century America decided two people should abandon family and move across the continent to procreate.
And it's still an unknown in many societies today where multiple generations live together and care for each other. Childcare isn't such an issue in a multigenerational family living together. And when you're elderly and in need of care, your disdain for your children living with you may come back to haunt you.
My parents' home was always open and they made sure we all knew it. I left at 19, not the arbitrarily required "18". I returned when relationships ended or I moved back to LA and needed time to find work and place a live. My sisters also came and went multiple times and a few friends landed there as well. All were warmly welcomed by my parents.
After my divorce, I returned home to reconfigure my life but found my parents were rapidly advancing in age. Plus, they live in a large 5 bedroom aging home in a great neighborhood that needs more upkeep than they were managing (Mom refuses to sell). Why move out in a rush when they end up calling me for help anyways? So I stayed put, in keeping with the tradition of my family and the ages. We love it!
So, please quit with the judgement of people who stay or return to their parents' homes. It's as old as history and often a blessing to aging parents.
52
Quick thought: so now the Trumpers are planning on forcing women to have unwanted babies. Will likely disproportionally impact the poor.
Take it to the voting booth.
39
"They both work full time — he in corporate finance and she in counseling — but they don’t yet feel they can take time away from their careers."
"Slavery" would be more apt than "careers."
32
Other posters may have made this point, but looking througg 900+ is daunting so...
Yay! I finally get to skip the comment I usually make about articles addressing reproductive drop off, the one where I object to only women having been polled/interviewed. For once a poll did what seems simultaneously obvious and miraculous, and queried both men and women.
10
Not surprising given a corresponding article in the NYT about how pregnant women are treated in the workplace.
16
But if abortion will soon be illegal in at least 20 states, then many women will be having children whether they want them or not.
29
Best trend in years. Why does the world need yet another mouth on a planet groaning with 7B people?
76
Couldn't agree more, farwest. Not only are there too many people on the planet already, why would anyone want to bring a child into a world so polluted, riven with strife, growing hotter by the minute and soon to be a vast wasteland?
32
The U.S. has always had financially exclusive neighborhoods. Today, those neighborhoods have grown to claim entire cities (New York), regions (San Francisco Bay Area), and even states (California). Combined with student loans and health care costs, the absurd price of homeownership is creating an economic and demographic disaster that’s getting no attention in Washington, and barely any attention in Sacramento or Albany.
20
As Ms Boer stated "now we know we have a choice"--we've always had a choice. It's true that birth control methods improved with the pill in the late 1960's (in my world) but somehow earlier generations knew how to avoid pregnancy (I can only guess how). Regardless, particularly for those of us in the baby boomer and earlier generations, women were brainwashed by their parents and society to think that getting married and having a family was what was normal and expected. Don't want to be an old maid do you? I'm thrilled that later generations realize that they really do have a choice and don't need to feel guilty about it.
34
Couldn't agree with you more. Thank you.
3
Yes, there was always a choice. My grandmother, in the 1930s, only wanted one child, my aunt. She was able to not get pregnant for 10 years and then decided to have another, but that was it. She chose.
3
Leading-edge Gen-Xer here but my childhood was swamped by Boomer and Silent norms and expectations. I bucked them all and am proudly that "old maid" today!
6
Think of how much adult children contribute to care for their elderly parents today. What will happen when a much larger portion of the elderly have no children to take care of them?
8
Savings!! If it costs over 250k to raise a child to 18( last statistic that I've read) you can certainly save enough. Depending on children to care for you is a recipe for disaster.
19
This is focused on people who want kids but decided not to have them. I wonder what percent just plain doesn't want them (like me).
29
Unconsciously we sense that the end is near. Why have children only to see them slaughtered by our robot overlords, or rendered irrelevant by our AI descendants.
21
Child care is too expensive - Legitimate reason, but look into specifics, don't write off having a kid cuz of money.
Want more time for the children I have - Fair enough.
Worried about the economy - Gimme a break.
Can’t afford more children - Fair enough.
Waited because of financial instability - Fair enough.
Want more leisure time - Gimme a break.
Not enough paid family leave - Work it out.
No paid family leave - Work it out.
Worried about global instability - Gimme a break.
Struggle with work-life balance - Gimme a break.
Worried about domestic politics -Tell your parents and/or whoever too bad if they don't like your wife/husband.
Met a partner too late - It's too late only if it is physically too late.
Worried about climate change - Gimme a break.
Responsible for other family care - Fair enough but you have a life too and being raised doesn't mean you're obligated to take care of someone in return.
Worried about population growth - Gimme a break.
Prioritized my education and career - Fair enough.
Split from my partner - And your chances of having children end with that? C'mon.
Partner doesn't want children - If you know this from the getgo and you want children don't start something.
Don't think I'm a good parent - Based on what?
6
The "Gimme a break" reasons are legit if they work for people. Have children if you want, and do not if you're not interested. Female, 61, no kids, not sorry.
36
Over my life of 62 years I have gone from being heartbroken, to relieved, to proud that I never had children!
53
When women enjoy being able to have sex without pregnancy, men get to enjoy sex without commitment. Why buy the cow when milk is free?. Thus, the crux of economic security.
Statistics bear out that married couples are better off financially and thus more able to raise children. Therefore, disincentives for marriage produce the opposite results. It's not too hard to understand.
6
I so wanted to work in an interesting career after school and only after working for many years was I able to discover that I really longed for a life partner first and foremost. Never considered single parenthood as an option for me. Only had time to make one baby but he at only 17 is definitely our best accomplishment. I am so in awe of single mothers I have met who do such a great job raising their children. I just don’t think I could have survived it without a true partner who shared housework and cooking while I was working. It’s a personal matter whether to bring kids into the world because we all have to ultimately be the creators of lives and trust our instincts. I also feel that in absence of having a lot of family nearby it’s been essential to have my husband and that he brings to the job of parenting.
7
Remember ZPG - Zero Population Growth? I bought into that program, got married, contributed to the conception of one child, who is smart, clever and independent. Only one? We could only afford one.
23
More than likely, US women are not wanting children for the same reasons as in the past. The difference quite likely is simply that they can be more effective in not having them. The piece also fails to tell us anything about distinctions by race or ethnicity, or even sex, for that matter. Also, I seriously doubt that anyone considers the cost of child care in their calculus about having children. Was this a multiple choice test? That question seems to have a bogus number of answers. Also, no indication as to how many answers were permitted. "Yeah, sure, I'll check that one off, too." This survey should be taken with a large grain of salt.
10
Here's one more way corporate America cons the people: continue the onus to procreate, thereby keeping high enough numbers to buy their products, work for subsistence wages (without benefits, usually), pay taxes the corporations and top management get out of paying, and stay in thankless jobs for fear of losing what little they have to feed their kids. If people are waking up to the scam, I can feel a little hopeful today. Send a donation to Planned Parenthood!
42
We spend $3,000 per month on childcare. I love my children dearly and would love to have more, and we do very well for ourselves financially. But let's be realistic.
With the money we spend on childcare, we could have a (much) nicer home, we could take a long weekend in Europe once a month, or we could provide more than 100,000 meals to hungry Chicagoans each year (according to the Greater Chicago Food Bank). And those numbers don't even include costs like food, medical bills, or a college fund. That's JUST preschool, at not-the-best-preschool-around, but a pretty good one.
We have good professional jobs, paid maternity AND paternity leave, and no student debt. We're the very lucky ones who have money like that to spend on our kids. We will have fewer children than we would like.
31
THe big issues seem to be financial. We don't seem to give parenthood anything other than lip service.
Here in Germany, and it isn't perfect by any means, women still face a penalty for dropping or temporarily leaving the workforce, there is Kindergeld. A monthly stipend paid directly to all parents for all children of about $200 per month. Until education stops. Women can be out of the workforce for up to 2 years and reclaim their old job. Parent leave or fathers is catching up.
If you want children something has to give. Increasing financial security would go a long way.
23
If childcare were tax deductible it would help working parents. It would also bring more paid caregivers into the system.
7
Those "paid care givers" are likely paid minimum wage with little to no benefits while the owner of the child care center rakes in the dough and expends little of it on the actual care of children.
12
While I am pleased to see that young people are thinking harder about what their families will be like in the future, I also like to caution those who are choosing not to have children, that a life without children isn't necessarily the best idea. I had one child and another, that wasn't planned, I declined. I am sorry about that now because I miss that person in my life. I often think about how things might have been different had that child been born. But, then again, we can't what we get. That person could have been as much a disaster as the first one. Life is said to give us what we need. I hope that is true, but our decisions are the ones that will be regretted.
3
For years, my wife and I, both professionals, pursued our careers and hobbies. Then had kids late; three; in our late 30's. Transformed our world. It has been hard. It has been expensive. It was the best thing we ever did in our lives. I know it's not for everyone, and I don't criticize people for not having children. But I do highly recommend raising children.
12
Amen. Before you have them, it’s easy to imagine all the ways that having children will make life harder, and it’s almost impossible to know how utterly fierce and life-changing your love for them will be.
8
The world population has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The UN estimates that in 1960 there were 3 billion humans on the planet; today that number is 7.5 billion. Although the overall global birth rate has slowed, we are still on track to reach 11 billion by 2100. It's obvious that our reproductive success is destined to make life more and more miserable in our already overtaxed ecosystems. I love children; I have two of my own and I adore them more than life itself. But if we want human life to continue as we know it, we should be looking for ways to support and celebrate those who choose to "have fewer babies."
45
Claire Cain Miller's agendas and lack of reckoning with where she came from seem to me to compromise her reporting but I think she's correct that US women (generally speaking) are not going to have more babies on the terms currently being offered by US men (generally speaking) (setting aside for the moment the people who call themselves "Americans" rather than US citizens). I don't think the social programs Miller wants are going to solve the problem either, though - and she remains unwitting about how the unconstitutional structure of current social programs (and the federal tax system) is causing this problem.
2
Why can’t people see past petty partisan squabbles and work together to solve a problem? You mention that the programs Ms Miller mentions won’t work. What would work, in your lofty opinion? Solving the fertility issue requires more government regulation, be that federally mandated PTO or federally funded/subsidized child care.
14
Then there's the demographic economics. Population control is a three-step process:
1) Have fewer children. Check. Been there, done that.
2) Figure out how to run an economy with an aging population. Punt. Invite in enough immigrants that your population doesn't really shrink, it just changes. That solves the economic problem but punts on population control.
3) Make sure that your neighbors, who don't limit their population, don't overwhelm you in a generation or two. Forgot about that one, didn't we?
Population control means marginalization or extinction of the societies that do it, unless you take care of #3.
It's complicated. And yes, I didn't have children because in 1976 when I graduated from college, it took me 10 years to get a decent job. The job market then, like now, favors a few with the "right" skills but isn't good enough for anyone else.
16
Was the US overrun, marginalized, and driven to extinction by Irish and Italian immigrants? No, because they wanted to become Americans. Same thing today.
17
We don’t need immigrants to run an aging economy. The robots are taking over.
4
You're missing a critical detail:
The Immigration Act of 1924, which radically curtailed the number of persons from both southern and eastern Europe who were permitted to immigrate to the US. Immigration did not continue unfettered throughout the late 1920s, 1930s, 1940s etc. In fact, the limitations set by the 1924 law were in effect through 1965.
Suppose, though, that southern and eastern Europe were contiguous with the US, and that anyone wishing to leave southern or eastern Europe during the 41 years between 1924 and 1965 could have walked into the US and declared that they were now at home. Do you honestly think that the US would not have been changed by this?
2
Children are a precious privilege. The author seems to imply that parenthood is a civil right. Every responsible adult has an obligation to ensure that they are emotionally and financially prepared to raise a child before conception and that doesn’t mean wealthy or perfect - it means willing to prioritize. This, above all else, is what we owe to future generations.
24
Which means ready access to birth control for all. Vote Democratic!
39
Sure, but to be honest, the playing field for my adult children is much more treacherous and unpredictable than it was for me as a young adult contemplating becoming a responsible parent.
19
Work and finances are of course very connected to the birth rate. But I think it is good that women are carefully choosing when and how many children to have. It's better for the children and for the moms. I also think a slower population growth, or even a declining population, is good as it may reduce the demand for housing which is intense right now. Workers will also be valued more if there are not enough of them. Lastly, the planet does not need more humans, it needs several billion fewer, so a declining birth rate helps there too.
29
And then there's climate change/global warming. Events on the ground are far outstripping the worst-case scenarios.
We, the world's apex predators, are about to get a very large comeuppance. Many people don't think it's wise or kind to the children to bring them into a world that our fellow humans are bringing to the brink of extinction. Even without CC/GW, the increased dangers of toxic waste, deregulation, and other forms of exploitation are considerable.
27
Just a note: we aren't actually apex predators, but I think you're aware of that.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/humans-arent-top-predators-says-new-report
We are in a race to the bottom, and some estimates say humans will be extinct within ten years or less. Even in my childbearing years, I wasn't interested in bringing another life into the world, and don't regret not having children.
11
Attributed to scholar Zhao Jie from the University of Beijing wrote as follows:
" *I admire those parents who are able to forge extremely strong and close bonds with their children when they were young and yet they know when to let go in a timely and appropriate manner when the children have grown up* . *Taking care of and raising children and then letting go of them are parents' basic and mandatory duties*''.
The parent- child relationship is not a type of relationship that is permanently with the parents being in control. *It is a special and profound relationship brought about by fate*; we must not let the child feel deprived or lacking when they were young and neither should we let them feel stifled when they have grown up. *The role of parents is a journey of love and wisdom* . Not only in one's role as parents, but also in life there are many moments that we need to understand when to advance and retreat.
*Very often people wonder why do we have children? Is it to carry on the family's name or to raise children to take care of us in old age*?
Finally, I found a very touching answer: *the reason for having children is both to give and to appreciate*.
We should not ask for perfection in our children, neither should we expect them to win credits to honour the family nor should we want them as an insurance for old age.
*We should only ask for them to be healthy and to let us have the chance to walk with them through this journey of life in this beautiful world*.
10
It’s all about the money. It’s always about the money. After the banks and financial institutions got away with the mortgage crisis by being bailed out with our tax money, they needed another financial vehicle with which to milk the American citizen. That vehicle is now the ubiquitous student loan. Utilizing the false hope of a past generation that a good education will get you a better job with better pay, they sold the American dream to a whole other generation and their parents. The problem is that the the old axiom of a better education equals a better job is no longer true. Wages have been stagnant over the past 30 years while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So now we have saddled an entire generation with an enormous debt that benefits few except the banks themselves. And these loans aren’t even dischargeable through bankruptcy or even death in many cases! No wonder the younger generation can’t afford a new home, they are buried in student loan debt. The sad fact is that we will all pay the price when these loans default and the economy collapses again. And it will happen, it’s just a matter of time.
22
I know a woman who, every time she had a baby (she has had one, two, three (oops!) no plans for more) her company gave her a raise. The valued her contribution and knew she would have no financial incentive to keep working if they didn't make it worth her while. Wouldn't that be nice for all women? Or maybe more and better tax breaks? In some countries, the government sends parents money at back to school time because they know things are about to get costly.
11
I think it's nice, up to a point. If the woman has a fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh child maybe is just mindlessly selfish to add that much population. Should the company keep rewarding her for proving her fertility?
15
Missing from this article is, I think, also a shift in how society values child-rearing and parenthood. I am a parent of a (well-behaved, average) young child. I get the sense that my grandparents felt proud when they had kids, and people looked up to them as "adults" and pillars of society when they crossed that threshold. In contrast, I feel like I'm a gigantic annoyance who shouldn't leave the house and intrude on the "adult" life of public spaces. I don't get the sense that anyone admires me for having kids. It's now seen as a "choice" in a negative sense, like owning a horse. Buy one if you want to, but nobody has sympathy for the problems you're having with your horse, and it's not welcome in the supermarket.
38
D. Green, if your child is indeed well behaved, I'm sure most people are not annoyed with her/him. But sadly most kids these days are not well behaved at all. They are rude, they are noisy and, yes, they are annoying. When I was a child no matter how energetic or unruly we were at home, we were not allowed to act rudely in public. (most) Parents now allow their children to run wild and many of us don't appreciate it.
17
Between financial insecurity and global warming, there are many valid reasons for humans to have fewer babies.
31
Americans have evolved beyond heteronormativity. People are free to discover or invent their gender and sexual expression. A couple who are the same cisgender cannot procreate, but they can still be a loving couple. Hormones given transsexuals result in sterility, but are necessary to confirm gender. With so many young people LGBT, it’s not surprising births are down, but they can always adopt.
4
CIS folks have IVF, sperm donors (no, not the old fashioned way), surrogates, so they do "breed."
3
I doubt this is having a significant impact on reproduction rates.
8
I delayed having my kids so I could provide a stable home and have the experience to do it right. Despite the delay there were no fertility problems...one month without a condom each time and I was 33 and 40...so I expect it's not a problem to wait for many. Just to say I was always afraid my biological clock would make it too late...but it wasn't.
8
One way to incentivize higher birth rates is to positively tie retirement income to the number of children one has had and raised (Social Security payments). The greater the number of productive children raised, the greater your Social Security payment. This would be in addition to the Social Security payment you personally secured thru your own working life. By doing so, Society would recognize and reward those families who bore the burden (financial and otherwise) to enable the next generation of productive Citizens and taxpayers.
5
I can attest from personal experience that children are expensive and time consuming. Children give one a stake in eternity. Our American society, based on rugged individualism, marketing, materialism, etc.,is not a kindly place to raise children. Within the past month the BBC had a podcast about what various countries have done to raise birth rates which was informative. If we want more kids and compensate parents for their sacrifices we as a society need to take part. One way we have is the Child Tax Credit, which is frosting when compared to the big picture. I am not sure that with the simple costs, time demands, and the like, those babe may look overwhelming. I think also of those having children late in life, the energy demands and going on Social Security about the time one's children graduate from high school. There is a reason the young have children.
7
I guess I'm surprised that climate change is near the bottom of the list. Having no children myself I have often wondered what young families think about the changing climate and how it will affect their children's lives. Now I know!
15
Many commenters are hitting it on the head about the state of our society and financial abilities to have kids.
And then there's this: it honestly doesn't seem to be a lot of fun. I see stressed out parents (emotionally and financially), with snotty, entitled, undisciplined kids, who say terrible things to their parents and siblings with no consequences. Kids who can't be bothered to look up from their ipads to say hello to a guest, or to sit and converse at the table with their family. And if you happen to say something about any of it, it's considered interference and none of your concern. Meanwhile, your meal/visit/evening is ruined by parents yelling ineffectively at their kids and the kids throwing temper tantrums.
Before anyone tackles me, I know there are parents who adore their kids and the kids are great. But that's often luck of the draw.
Did I mention that I love kids? I do. But kids today, not so much.
56
People who actually think about the financial burden of having children are limiting the number they have. Those who are too poor to support their kids and depend on the government (us) have many more children than those who think about it. The same goes for drug addicts who don't think at all. We need more free long term birth control so that society isn't burdened by children whose parents can't even begin to support them. We also need better and more affordable day care which seems to be the deterrent for many who are responsible and planning ahead. Most other civilized countries have already tackled that problem. Why is the US always the last to do what it right?
27
What we find in the sciences is that what people claim is their motivation is often not their true motivation.
We have a society that tells girls that they must demonstrate their independence by getting a job, that they must demonstrate their status by buying stuff, and that they should wait to have children.
It's no surprise that 10 years later they have a job, a career, and spending habits they can marginally afford. If we valued parenting instead of celebrating a wage trap "independence", many of our problems would be much better. Certainly, all but my most desperately poor students would have been better served with a mother instead of the second income.
11
I would have more respect for your opinion if you had said "parent" instead of "mother" - WHY do men always want to tell women to give up careers they have studied for in order to care for the children.? Each couple can find their own balance but I truly resent you and other men telling me and my daughters to stay home and care for the children.
25
I would suggest you consider performing a survey of millenials to see how many would prefer the idea of a mother staying home to raise children, as opposed to a father staying home, while the mother worked outside of the home. Also, consider how many women are looking to find a male partner who will raise children while she works outside of the home. For all of the lip service to abandoning patriarchy and traditional family norms, it may surprise you to see what women actually prefer.
2
I find it interesting in the comment section some people calling women selfish for not wanting to have children. The patriarchal society needs to end!!!
Also, the article doesn't talk about those of us that chose to have children and were stay-at-home moms during our most productive years career wise only to find ourselves getting divorced with no funds for retirement, lack of work experience, etc. which our children are seeing and not wanting a part of.
Keep working women, write your own stories, don't let backward thinking people decide your future as only you know what is best for you!
49
I knew when I was very young that I did not fit the job description.
24
At some juncture it will become apparent that the earth is finite. There cannot be infinite growth, whether of humans or anything else, in a finite space. There are already way too many humans on this planet. We are going to have to learn how to survive as a species on this planet without an ever-increasing population.
26
The economic impact is pretty easy to quantify, not sure why that is debated. It starts with the very real price tag of taking your baby home the first time. Thanks to the joke healthcare system, even a well-insured parent gets a hefty bill right off the bat. Followed by the decision of stay-at-home parenting, and relying on one income or paying for daycare (for multiple kids often the equivalent).
I won't trade my kids for anything, but the compromises that entails are real and significant. And compared to quite a few other countries, they are more significant.
12
The short answer is that we are failing young people as a society, largely due to decades of anti-social government policies. The cost of housing, of child care, of advanced education, along with restructuring of the total tax burden downward have left reproduction to be a very dicey choice for many.
Over the last fifty years these rising costs, the increasing social advancement penalties associated with having children, and the rise of easily accessible and effective birth control are causing many to just opt out. What I worry about most is that the choice of many otherwise well suited potential parents to opt out of reproduction is going to produce a significant evolutionary inflection point.
14
The writer notes one of the reasons Americans are having fewer babies is "women have more options." An option many have taken to "survive" the costs and difficulties children pose as outlined in the article, is to have an only child--a choice couples have been making in increasing numbers in the last two decades. The stigmas and stereotypes surrounding the only child (and his parents) are waning as the single child becomes a doable choice--something discussed in my book, The Case for the Only Child.
12
Folks will live longer, combined with generally high productivity, but with need for fewer workers, leads to a simple easy response: a rational immigration policy.
11
Why is the fault always placed on the government for not paying for us not having children, for employers for not offering months or years or paid time, for childcare for charging us to watch our children. We may want these things, free money, but generations and generations existed without them as well, having and raising children somehow. They relied on themself only, or family resources.
Lets add to the discussion that 2-income families is more the norm now than 1-income families of more distant past. Often families can't subside off 1-income alone today, and thus even if desired, one parent can't be at home to raise young children. Despite gender balancing, it is still often the woman's loss, now having to work instead of have child time. Not because she wants a career but because she can't afford to stay home. We can bucket this in with "too expensive", but stay-at-home parent decisions, and the cost-of-living around that have defined generations past. Smaller homes, less luxuries, subsidize a stay-at-home parent.
We can even factor in dynamics around families. Grandparents used to be closer geographically, and likely more involved in raising young children as a result. Now it seems grand parents live across the country and kids go to college in other states, often starting families there. We're left with orphaned families that may rely on paid childcare alone, and they assume it is an entitlement that it be cheap enough so they can live this way.
8
In the times you are talking about, good wages and good public education subsidized children. An older mentor paid only a few thousand dollars for college, because he went to a state school. His mom could work part time when he was young because wages exceeded the cost of living.
Now, companies treat their workers like paper assets: pay them as little as they can get away with while making them work as much as possible. Income among the bottom 90% is rising slower than the cost of education, healthcare and housing. That’s the reason people can’t afford kids, not because they bought an iPhone.
The reason people move away from families is to find work. But that work may not give them enough time or money to take care of kids on their own...but moving home means losing the job.
This generation of white, middle class Americans has it much harder than any generation since the depression — except now we have effective birth control. You want to blame it on luxeries and travel, but we’ve rigged society against the people who want children.
27
Or grandparents just don't want to raise (grand)children all over again, a choice they are fully entitled to make. I have known grandparents who lived in the same geographic area as their adult children refuse to be free daycare centers because they'd already been there and done that.
12
Many commenters here say that having to pay for childcare is crushing them and there needs to be subsidized child care and paid time off to relieve this heavy burden. Child care centers who charge $1k a week or more and pay their workers-- the ones doing the actual child care-- minimum wage are making a mint. That is never mentioned in articles like this. Why doesn't anyone look into why the cost is so high?
16
Just when the fertility rate falls, the government tries to severely restrict immigration. Why can we not accept the only viable alternative?
8
This boils down to two groups that are having children.
The poor, on welfare, that are not worried about the costs, someone else is paying for it.
And the rich, who aren't worrying about the costs.
Mostly, for the rest, it boils down to selfishness and unwillingness to sacrifice for the future.
Sad
6
You are so wrong. Young couples are making hard decisions and deciding they simply can’t afford children beginning with the costs of the pregnancy itself. Of course GOP member of Congress don’t have to worry taxpayers pay for their health care. I’m sick of young people getting a raw deal and then being blamed.
33
Having kids is a sacrifice for the future? We’re sacrificing the planet due to overpopulation. How about not having kids to help save the planet.
32
Children: I've never laughed as hard, smiled as broadly, and felt more blessed because of them. I never yelled as much, lost my mind (temporary), and worried as much because of them. If I were to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Children teach you to be humble, gracious, courageous, and understanding. They cause you to move out of your comfort zone, which is a good thing. If you want to know what love is, children will teach you that as well.
Young people, do you really want to go through life without having your own children? Yes, the hardships and sacrifices are real. Always has been and always will. But I know too many people my age (50s) who never had children, and feel they've missed something in life they can never obtain.
8
Many people without children made a rational decision to skip it. Will the joys outweigh the sorrow / worry / expense / stress? Maybe, but nothing is guaranteed in this life. I'm in my late 40's and have never for one second regretted not having children.
18
Only well-adjusted people should be having children. Many people are not well-adjusted and their children suffer greatly because of it. I’m glad you enjoyed parenrhood but not everyone makes a good parent.
31
Not true, in my 60s! BTW, sorry if this is my second response to you.
2
Healthy civilizations, healthy countries are growing. Shrinking ones are sick and dying. That's all she wrote.
2
Yeah great points. Mexico, Africa, Central America, good examples of "growing" countries. Growing so well that vast numbers of their people are trying to leave. Rediculous.
21
Except that's profoundly not true. Angola, Niger, and Mali are tied for the highest birth rate in the world. Monaco has the lowest. I know where I'd rather live.
20
My older kids and their friends, many of whom just graduated from college, flatly state that they have no desire to bring kids into the world as it is now. Over and above financial issues, they talk about the mess that's around the corner, at least within their theoretical childrens' lifetimes if not their own.
They go on to discuss what will happen as polar ice melts, the climate continues to change, and the world's economies struggle to adapt to the mass migration that results. They talk about what's coming, domestically speaking, with our country so divided and intolerant, a broken political system that has lost all credibility, a public education system that in many regions consistently produces gullible citizens who can't identify factual information let alone understand it, and especially, so much inequality, discrimination and inequity. And so, so many guns in the mix.
Although some of what they say is young adult hyperbole, much is just logical conclusion drawn from evidence. It makes me sad to think I might not have grandchildren, but frankly, if I were 22 now I'm not sure I'd want to have kids, either.
They may feel more optimistic once immoral Trump and his minions are gone, but it's hard to see how the global warming issue improves, no matter what.
If anyone is to blame for young peoples' antipathy to child rearing, it's adults.
56
You raised some smart kids.
18
I find it fascinating that the writer paid so little attention to what I found to be the most interesting statistics: That 30 percent of those surveyed said they had no desire to have children. That tracks well with the growing trend toward childlessness by choice, which, I think is another indication of the impact of gender changes. Freed from much of the traditional social pressure to reproductive, growing number of women are opting out entirely.
29
Agree. I have often wondered if the “joy” of having children partly developed from the lack of choice in having the children. Humans adapt amazingly well to the environment in which they find themselves. There are many sources of pleasure. Choice in one arena opens up choices in others.
16
With all due respect, those surveyed are young and not set in their views. It is entirely probable they will mature into fertility aspirations as previous generations. The Woodstock Boomer generation also had anitpathy towards child-rearing as did the "Me" generation. Now we have egg freezing angst.
3
They have recognized that it is mostly a bad deal for them. Now with one party pushing to further limit their choices and being in control of all branches of government, I can think what one response might be (permanent sterilization) while they are still able to make that decision.
16
Cynical to think so, but is the economic policy long favoured by big business the source of the low fertility rates? Keep the native work force underpaid and overbusy paying off student debt, and they will be productive and sexless worker bees. You can always import new labour by skimming the best of excess world population with business visas. The politicians won't object, because you own them anyhow. So your only risk is a populist President. Whoops -- and how are relations between the Chamber of Commerce and the Donald doing lately?
15
I recommend Alissa Quart's new book, "Squeezed...Why Our Families Can't Afford America", to succinctly and poignantly explain why so many more women are choosing not to have children. I believe the Times just reviewed this all-encompassing account of all that's currently wrong in our "make America great" again country.
20
I am a grandfather 2 daughters, 3.6 grandchildren (due in October) I was a professor, My wife a physician. For women to have children and a meaningful career at the same time requires a partner who is totally supportive. It's not just question of money, its EVERYTHING. My mother in law was a brilliant scientist and had an incredibly supportive husband. My daughters have totally supportive husbands. One daughter is a PhD scientist and the other an attorney. The simple fact is that if women want children more than men do, men can easily take advantage of them by dumping all the costs on the. As a society we have to decide if that is the future we want.
39
Well said, I absolutely agree. My mother had a brilliant career as an engineering professor in large part because my father (also a professor) shared household duties 50/50. I am a lawyer, mother of three, and could never never never do it without the support of my husband, a PhD who temporarily put his career on hold to stay home with our kids during their toddler years. Bravo to all of the partners who share the load!
26
Given the current state of our planet, and particular the looming threat of climate change and overpopulation that threatens the future of the entire experiment known as humanity, the astonishing question should not be why some Americans are choosing not to have children, but why some Americans still ARE having them. That should be the real eyebrow-raiser in this age.
31
This nation seems to be in the grip of work culture radicals who see a family and children as nothing more than a very expensive luxury hobby for those who have the means to live off their interest income. Working class people are the life and the character and the strength of this nation and the radical right is starving us of our resources to procreate. Tell me again why equal pay, child care, healthcare and the rights of women are "feminist" issues and not universal issues for us all.
32
The wealth created by the American people in the last 30 years gone to the top 10% of the population with the top 1% taking the lion's shair of that. The other 70% are poorer than their parents.
The only way to reverse this trend is to vote every single republican out of office on Nov. 6, 2018.
31
Well, duh.
We have government and workplace policies that penalize women for having children.
I think this is what economists would call market wisdom.
23
Good news. There are plenty of children already existing in this world that need parents (good ones) - no need for more.
20
The people are doing the right thing by not having children. Eventually The Government will have to do something to help them. Otherwise no people to fight their wars, buy their products, fill their for profit prisons.
Or maybe at some point the Govt. will find a way to force people to have kids?
10
At 5% of the worlds population using 25% of its resources a falling u.s. birthrate is the best news the planet can have. No one would begrudge couple replacing themselves (2 kids per couple) but the planet it growing by a net ~ 80 million per year. We are not running out of humans by any measure. The u.s. population has doubled in my lifetime. Mexicos population has quadrupled in the same time period and is another example of out of control human numbers. We should be concerned about giving every human a decent life and opportunities instead of continuing on the path or quantity over quality as we are now. Look around the planet. The short sighted bemoan the fact that places like Europe and Japan have falling populations. They are also the most desirable places to live. Places like Nigeria, Central America and Africa have booming populations. Anybody volunteering to move to those countries?? The path to human prosperity and happiness is not down the road of crowded, resource depleted, polluted over population.
29
One of the threads common in these comments is the lack of willingness to compromise or sacrifice personal goals in order to have a family. Having and raising children responsibly is hard, time consuming and expensive and the task requires commitment and sacrifice many times to the detriment of other goals. Those who realize they have neither the fortitude, willingness to personally sacrifice or the resources to have a child could be described as "mature" for such successful introspection. They could also be described as selfish. As birth rates plummet globally in developed countries, many excuse their childlessness for "environmental reasons" claiming that they were "saving the planet". How noble. Their rationale for not having children could extend to other societal conflicts and could help explain much about our political paralysis.
1
Economically speaking, are children necessary? Do parents today think that children will add to the economic security of the family or provide for them in their old age? Both sets of my grandparents were farmers and had very large families (1915 to 1925) and children were considered an economic asset (especially boys) in a hard physical labor dominated economic environment. Now, urbanization and the automation of all things along with more community based elder care, the once prevalent reasons for having children for long term economic security of the parents especially in their feeble years seems to have eroded significantly.
My grandparents saw having their large families as a personal economic necessity, and in their own personal best interests long term, economically, and for survival. Wow, have things sure changed.
15
Our cultural drift has been to expect more, more free time, more house size, more fancy cars, more vacation time, more technology, more work-granted privilege, etc. Affording that takes 2 incomes and many, many simply cannot support life style preferences if the mother stops working or chooses to work parttime. As well, world population rates are stressing systems in ways that highly educated folks know about and may well be reluctant to stress with high birth rates. However, clear, as well, is that undereducated folks, immigrants, and internationals have not decreased birth rates nearly as much. Major regions like the USA, Canada, and Europe need immigrants to replace absent children in the job force and as taxpayers. Japan’s population is shrinking unwilling to take in immigrants. Witness that in Europe, despite the backlash against immigration, unemployment is low, even low among immigrants. The immigrants, people of color generally, have integrated exceptionally quickly. I.e., Europe needs the immigrants. The USA needs them, too. And, immigrants have lower privilege expectations than native born people, are willing to live at a lower standard of living, and are a great boon to developed countries.
The points are that continued lowering of birth rates has a solution that is at our doorsteps if we could educate the public on the value of immigration, if we could lessen xenophobic fears, fears of cultural change, and the effects of intermarriage among races.
5
You contradict yourself where you say immigrants "are willing to live at a lower standard of living, and are a great boon to developed countries." I think most people would agree that being "willing to live at a lower standard of living" (and thus by implication dragging down wages and living standards for the population as a whole) is not, in any way, a boon for a country but makes almost everyone poorer, except for the plutocrats who exploit cheap labor. I see this myself as a professor in a STEM field-- the H-1B visa is widely abused and used to bring in workers from India subjected to near-slave labor conditions, lower wages and 100-hour weeks and unable to change jobs. They work and live under often horrid, even squalid conditions for the faint hope of a green card to escape a horribly overpopulated India, but in practice are used and discarded while Americans with student loans lose out on jobs and living wages. Only the arrogant oligarchs like the Koch Brothers with their (largely) inherited wealth benefit. Immigration is too often a tool for big business to exploit and underpay workers.
Also you're wrong about Europe's immigration, I consult there frequently and most of the EU's immigrants are actually from elsewhere in Europe, also more and more from North and South America. Unfortunately the Muslims there have not integrated well at all, and are largely leaving (or being deported). Europe has more family-friendly policies than US too, so they need immigrants less.
7
I am a professional woman, have three kids at age 38, work full time and never took any time off other than short, unpaid maternity leaves. I love my children dearly, but the comments regarding the lack of support ring very true. It could be coincidental, but I have an almost full head of white hair at age 38 whereas my younger brothers, twins who are 36, happily unmarried and childless do not have a single white hair on their heads!
23
My physician, childless sister had a full head of grey hair long before I (childless attorney) did. And well before my (one child) brother did. It's not always about social commentary.
1
I was interested to see that there were no questions about religious preference in the survey, unless there were and the answers were too few to make the final tally represented in the article. How does this family size choice skew along religious practice lines? The Bible does have that 'be fruitful and multiply' line in it. Are conservative parents conflicted about the pressures pushing toward fewer children versus God's perceived mandate to have large families?
The child care costs are a huge impediment. In our fluid society, fewer and fewer children live near their parents when they decide to have children, meaning hired child care help is a necessity. I know one family that is fostering a child, in which case the state agency pays for the child care. I frankly don't know how they would afford to have a child otherwise, even though both of them work full time.
3
My son was in a relationship for five years. From the get-go his girlfriend texted photos of engagement rings constantly. He took it in stride along with her pressure to buy a house and have children by the time she was twenty-five. He demurred as he was "married" to his job. Nevertheless she decided to move in with him. The pressure was on-going.
The relationship came to an end when he admitted he could not give her what she wanted.
I find it odd that he was the one who made the decision. That he could recognize that he was not ready despite the constant pressure was impressive.
As his mom I never nagged him for a grandchild. And never will.
Despite the fact that he is my only child and that would leave me without grandchildren I respect his life choices. He works very hard, loves his job and has a wonderful group of supportive friends.
I asked him recently if he wants a family. His response was "I don't know, Ma" As long as he feels that way he should not be a parent.
As for the future "Que sera, sera"
23
A lot of young families depend heavily on grandparents for assistance from everything from child care, to home loans to college costs.
21
Those grand parents accumulated wealth at the time when the u.s. had an economy and environment that could handle our numbers. Now that we're fully into the race to the bottom of globalization and over population we're becoming more like most societies, a grim struggle to survive. That transfer of wealth will keep some people going for a while but in the end it won't last in our brave new world.
23
From a societal perspective, what worries me is the following: The very kind of person thoughtful enough to decide NOT to have children for rational, considered reasons might have been the kind of parent more likely to raise a child who'd become an adult well equipped to participate productively in whatever society will consist of forty years from now. Those who don't give it a second thought and procreate away, less so. Might sound chilling, but it still concerns me.
47
There is a name for that, it is called Idiocracy. Google Mike Judge.
9
Me too - it's a dystopian irony. And it will get worse. As the uneducated children of the uneducated become adults,the principle of democracy will put them in charge of the whole show.... I hope to be dead by then.
10
I was and remain an excellent parent to my now grown kids, but when I look back at my own life -- married at 29, knowing nothing about life, my son born three years later, my daughter born 7 years after my son -- I realize now, at age 59, that I would have been a far better, more patient, wise and understanding parent, and certainly better positioned to provide for them financially, had I had kids when I was in my 40s and had begun to live life. But then a suitable partner, a woman my age, a peer, would have been too old to make babies.
This is nature's cruel irony: when we are young and fertile we lack the wisdom and knowledge that comes with age and which undoubtedly would make us better dads and moms. When we gain such understanding, we are too old to bear children.
15
That is where a good family, grandparents, step in. We are never done raising our kids (as you said). If young people would just listen a little more and respect their parents, many do, they might actually learn something from them. And we old people realize, you never stop learning, improving.
4
Millions of people don't' have a family infrastructure for that support. There are many reasons for this and does not justify calling them not a "good" family. Sounds like rose colored spectacles of privilege.
4
That's why kids need grandparents. My kids and my Mom are thick as thieves!
6
I had two children - one in 1995 and one on 1997. I had to return to work 8 weeks after each birth. I spent 20 minutes of my 30 minute meal break standing in the employee bathroom pumping breast milk for my infants, and had 10 minutes to wolf down my meal. It was a constant struggle to juggle work schedules and child care. Other commenters are right on target: there is NO support for families with children. I love my children dearly, and they have grown into fine young adults. But I wouldn't wish this kind of financial, physical, and mental stress on them, or anyone else. We are solidly middle class, scrimped and saved for their college educations, and sacrificed a lot of our own lives to provide for them. It's a no-brainer that young adults looking at this would decide it is not for them. While I cherish certain memories about their childhood, the main sentiment is that it was so, so hard.
61
I'm 38 and have three children (6, 4, and an infant). My family is my crowning joy and greatest accomplishment of my life.
I have a graduate degree and had a professional career in NYC for a decade. I traveled and had fun all through my 20s. I still have activities and hobbies of my own, but nothing even comes close to giving me joy as being married, settled, and to have my identity be "mother."
Of course, this is probably because being a mother has been 100% my choice. I have always had access to good birth control. I was always told I could be anything I wanted. I was never pressured to have kids or told that I needed them to be complete. My own mother was both secure in her own identity and found joy in motherhood, and so was an excellent role model. All my pregnancies were planned and getting pregnant was easy. I have the children I want, no more, no less. I know this is a privilege.
I feel for women who are not able to realize their choices, either through lack of access to birth control or lack of financial resources. Society should be both making contraception more accessible AND finding ways to facilitate greater financial stability so middle class families will feel comfortable growing.
Society needs people for its continuation. The bringing up of the next generation is one of the most important thing a culture accomplishes.
But voluntary mothers are better than pressured ones.
19
The threat of poverty here is a real concern, especially when you are trying to either stave it off or climb right out of it. Besides, this government doesn’t seem concerned about creating viable and sustainable opportunities for future generations.
The attitudes and beliefs that lead to much of the rancor and divisiveness across many communities in the U.S. is also not encouraging higher fertility rates. The socioeconomic values here are all screwed up and there is no way you can raise a child or even maintain a family when the culture of America itself prizes individualism as some worthy moral imperative. This concept undermines family values and community spirit in exchange for misguided materialism and narcissism.
22
And with keeping all immigrants out, there will be no replacement. I'm all for controlling population, global warming will probably take care of that, but with no younger generation to be the producers, will that make America great again?
2
It is ironic that conservative ideology (basically, no public funding for anything) put into practice over the last few decades is the no. 1 reason Americans are having fewer children. Why ironic? Because it increases the ratio of new voter born in other countries over those born in this country--just the opposite of what conservatives want.
9
James...."conservative ideology" conserves critical thinking as much as anything else and attracts spite-based followers; it's an IQ graveyard.
13
Sadly, it doesn't seem to occur to your writer that infertility may actually be increasing, which it has, 100% over 34 years: 8% infertile in 1982, but 16.7% in 2016. This is happening all over the developed world. Why? In animal crowding experiments that same effect is well known as the population density increases. Also, crowded animals are increasingly stressed and sickened. Mother Nature has been through over-crowded species putting too great demands on their environment for food, space, etc. We have long evolved population limiting mechanisms whether we choose to consider them or not. The young nurse from Portage,MI, who you picture, has already become mildly Cushingoid from her high stress job and racing around the street of Kalamazoo. I know, as I practiced medicine there, too! Her cortisol and CRH levels are elevated and that can cause infertility in men and women. ALL of our "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, lung disease, accidents including ODs, kidney disease, dementias, mental illnesses, etc.) are caused by the same mechanisms-this is Mother Nature's way of culling crowded animals. These kids deciding to not have children in this over-crowded, over-burdened world are the best of us. We will either limit our reproduction or Mother Nature will do it for us. That's the real story. Too bad your author didn't tell the whole story, although she mentions 1/4 of respondents not having the children they wanted to.
17
Except that this article is specifically about people choosing not to have children. Not people wanting them but suffering from fertility issues. It's a real issue, but it's not this issue.
15
If a vast majority of individuals surveyed cited a lack of funds related to child care as a reason to not have a child.
Then having a child is a decision based solely on ones own financial situation.
Sad and true.
8
My husband and I had one child. We both had to work so there was no choice involved. Our son has grown into one of the most amazing people I have ever met. But it came at a cost. We had a full time baby sitter, but working 10-12 hours a day and then coming home and trying to be a good parent, is really, really difficult. Our son had colic and there were times when I went to work on 2 or three hours of sleep - for days in a row. It got so bad my skin hurt. Once, when I was teaching a computer class, I had to run to the ladies room to throw up. I was just so exhausted. Another time I hallucinated from lack of sleep. On weekends, if we both had to work, I packed up my son's clothes, pillows, toys, food etc. and brought him to work with me. The day he learned to walk, I was at work, and I broke down in tears because I wasn't there to witness his first steps. Finally, I just quit my job and stayed home with our son. But then the bills started piling up. We were down to our last $100.00. My husband took a second job.
It is very, very hard to raise a child especially when you have to do it all on your own with no support from family or your job.
I think the downward trend in childbearing is a good thing. What is the other choice? To multiply until the last inch of green earth is populated? This adjustment is not just about finances or feminism, I think it's also about a natural response to over population.
74
Sing it, sister !
20
The rich get rich and the poor have babies; as the saying goes. In Britain many poor teenagers having children in order to get free government flats. Other career women at 40 realize their careers have been a mirage as they watch re-runs of FRIENDS (the singles life stops at 40) who pretend they have friends. Having children is what life is about; even one. Being a mother is a blessing.
1
Richard B - I see you're from France. Interesting - I've always said that if I *did* find myself pregnant - and decided to keep it - I would buy a one - way ticket to France, and say, that's it - this child is being raised HERE. No way would I raise a child in the United States.
4
Of all the reasons mentioned... Im surprised pregnancy pain & complications is not one of them.
That and all the other reasons women are finally realizing if anyone wants us to have a child it better be worth it.
Also to the men who think women should have children as a responsibility - you have no say until you have actually gone through childbirth and dilated your vagina to about 13 inches in circumference, and if not cut your lower abdomen in half for the c-section. And then after possibly suffer from vaginal prolapse, vaginal tears, incontinence etc and not to mention possible death.
42
This country, America thinks it is all family but nothing can be further from the truth. Lack of affordable healthcare, crazy cost of college, neighborhoods/communities designed for cars not people, poor wages for low end service jobs. America is also obsessed with youth, so having a kid makes you instantly uncool. At least young people are being responsible for themselves. I hate when old folks say stuff like, it will all work out. It is different times now. The competition people deal with, the travel sports teams and college prep that starts in junior high. People are simply reflecting the difficulty of living in the US. It is a hard life, not the glamour or excitement portrayed on TV, film, and social media.
44
And it was a hard life, if not harder, for those “old” people. Since when is a travel team required to play sports? If you can’t afford an expensive college, don’t go to that expensive college. Live at home and go to a school close by, join the National Guard or Army Reserves and use the GI bill and tuition exemption, work while in school. I worked 20-30 hours a week waiting tables while in college at a major state university. I joined the National Guard for tuition exemption and the GI bill (oh, and served my country by the way). I bought a 15year old car and kept it running myself. I had to install a transmission in my apartment parking lot in the rain so it would be ready to get me to work the next day. I graduated with 3k in school loans and paid for my entire college education myself. I’m not bitter. It is just what I needed to do to keep my life progressing forward. They are life and character building experiences. It was tough at times. But I was never desperate or cynical because I made the right choices (mostly) and got by pretty well. I’m somewhat proud now that I made it and live a great life now with kids. So yeah, when I see some kid living at home not working a “service” job to get by that took out 60k in loans and didn’t work during school and complaining about how tough it is I’m skeptical. They can’t have families because it is hard out there. It is hard out there. Always has been. Get to work and don’t put yourself on a pedestal. Things will workout.
7
Billy-"Get to work and don’t put yourself on a pedestal. Things will workout. " Indeed, they will. I dont have children & take care of my widowed Mother. That's a full time job in itself ....
4
Billy, how many families do you know? Yes, you have to be on a travel team, have a promposal, get a new car when you turn 16, go on a volunteer service vacation abroad, etc etc to be considered a normal teenager. 30 years ago it was easier to be a teen. Today the competition and standards are different.
8
This article states that US fertility rates are now close to those of the rest of the industrialized world and that there is gender equality in the rest of the industrialized world. I attended a Fourth of July party where the host asked guests why they thought younger people didn't have more children. Some guests, most of them age 70 and older, said young people are selfish. The party was held in any area of upstate New York where most people now in their 70's had access to many well paying manufacturing jobs. There folks, myself included, were raised to believe that there parents should pay for their own children and not start families until they could afford to raise them and raise them themselves. It follows that these, today, often religiously affiliated and conservative values based folks would instill these values in their children and children's children. Many Americans are having fewer babies because they were taught not to have babies they couldn't care for amid a time when chemical long reliable contraception became more and more available. While I like this article, this article ignores extended cultural context.
6
The good news is that they understand the challenges and, more importantly, responsibilities associated with parenthood. Good for them. Perhaps they could use a little help with their risk-taking skills. There is a bit of a leap involved in becoming a parent.
6
Don't worry, republicans will soon outlaw IUDs and other forms of birth control.
25
And now our corrupt government wants to repeal Roe Vs. Wade. I hope the women take over and kick all of the piggish men out of Congress--which means ALL of them.
39
Here in Massachusetts there is no wonder why young people are opting out of having children. Daycare costs at a minimum of $600 a week per child including paid vacations for staff, elementary extended day program prices are a mortgage payment alone.
$1000 dollar per child weekly summer camp price tag just so your child can enjoy the same fun your parents provided.
Adding to those costs are the re-payment of their college loans, rent and a minimal cost of living increase every year.
16
Poor policies will impact our viability as a society. When lack (cost) of child care and family leave top the list you know something is wrong with America. We are the wealthiest country and yet we are the poorest. Sad, but these young people are making the right decision. Who would be excited to bring a baby into our sick country.
17
Well, well, well! After forty years of squeezing money from the middle class, Republicans (the ruling class, the greed class) have finally squeezed enough that they've made it aversive for the middle class to produce workers and taxpayers. And they don't want immigrants to do the work because, you know, melanin, and get off my lawn! How long do you think it'll be before they notice they have a problem? I'm guessing 30 years, then another 30 years blaming Democrats.
49
One of the effects of individualistic values based upon feminism and materialism is that people do not reproduce at the rate of traditional cultures who hold transcendent values based upon family and religion.
Because of this differential birth rate, people with these traditional values who are migrating northward, such as Hispanics in the US or North Africans in Europe, are slowly becoming the most populous demographic groups in the US and much of Europe.
5
Those "traditional values" have lead to the devastation of their Home Counties. Look around the planet, we have more than "gone forth and multipied". To the point of destroying the world we depend on for our and it's other inhabitants survival.
15
It speaks volumes that overpopulation is a scant 14% of concern. The vapid cluelessness of our predicament is clear.
Lay out the total in goods, products and resources one human being consumes in an average 75-year lifespan. Imagine the endless miles of food, the thousands of barrels of oil and the millions of gallons of clean water. And then think of everything that can't be presented- like an eroding ozone and melting glaciers. Animals that have gone extinct. And that is for one singular human being. Yet we barely even discuss it and continue to mindlessly procreate.
This is, and has been, our number one problem. The planet is not faring well with 7.5 billion humans. It will continue to suffer, only worse, as the population climbs to 10 billion. If we keep it up Planet Earth will eventually expel us like a spirochete from its throat.
22
My children are the greatest joy in my life. As this article notes, there are many reasons not to have children, however, there is no substitute for the wonder, happiness, grief, entertainment and love that children bring. They are also our only touch with immortality.
4
Mine too. My kids understand parenting is a very serious job, not to be undertaken lightly, but they have also heard throughout their lives that they are one of the greatest gifts I have ever experienced.
4
Dissillusioned....I generally agree with your sentiment except for your last sentence.
We'll all be quite as a dead as a door nail soon enough, regardless of whether we have children or not.
Don't pretend that having children affects that sober, inevitable truth.
'Immortality' is the stuff of religion loons and selfish narcissism.
36
Exactly - that line about immortality always bugs me. I'll bet if you stopped ten people on the street, nine of them couldn't name their great-grandparents. Maybe immortality comes in the form of biological presence, but I guarantee that after two or so generations, none of your relatives will know your name. I think the only real immortality in the world is in art and literature.
6
It's a shame we can't figure out a way to survive without needing an ever increasing population to make the money work. Look at us, worried that women aren't spitting out enough replacement worker bees.
22
I too am childless by choice. And while many of the comments here are inspiring, sometimes I see glimpses of another America that may as well be on another planet.
This other America has plenty of seemingly happy, financially secure families. Usually the father is upper income, and the mother stays home with the children. These families are usually white, and they have 2-4 children. While they sometimes voice concern for the environment or our turn towards fascism, you can tell that their higher priority and most of their attention is on selfishly taking care of their own family members. When I tell these people that I’m heading to a protest on the weekend, I often get eye rolls in return; they’ll be at the pool, or at soccer practices.
They don’t have the stomach for socialism or to sacrifice of their white privilege to make it easier for the less well off to have more children, and this is what truly saddens me. Because it’s as if life is becoming a zero sum game, where these “winners” in the game of life are literally the ones who are going to pass this world on to their heirs, while those of us who pursued our selves and did not earn as much, or do not accept traditional gender roles, will be nothing but a memory.
My only hope now for the future is in mass migration. Perhaps a tide of single mothers from Central America can be the tidal wave that brings a socialist future, that wipes out all of these white privilege hoarding traditional families.
14
Yeah that's the country we all want to live in, the one that looks like a Central American country. Please take a few weeks (although it will take much less time) and visit that area and "enjoy" the fruits and lifestyle that over population brings to your life:poverty, desperation, ignorance, pollution, hopelessness, etc.
9
If you are a profession couple that went to grad school, you are in your 30's before you have kids. There just isn't enough clock to have more than two, and they are probably 4-6 years apart. College costs money, and most of my peers are in or approaching their 60's with college freshman. Retirement? LOL! See you when I'm 80. I just hope I don't croak before my last kid graduates...
16
What is unique in this discussion is the mention of finances, and being financially ready for kids. My parents' generation, which produced us baby boomers, never even asked this question. Children were considered a gift from God - and who turns away a gift from God? Nobody, so they had as many children as God sent them. It was really hard, seeing how hard my parents worked and sacrificed for the 6 of us kids. My husband and I never had any kids - it wasn't a choice, it just didn't happen - and I have always felt grateful that I lived in a time where women could make a contribution to society, other than by procreating.
18
Wake up Party of Greed.
If you build a predatory culture, do not give a flip about young people’s jobs, college, debt, maternity or daycare costs, if you expect women to be hounded by ridiculous old men who argue and intrude on a young couple’s family planning, even criminalizing a miscarriage, then how can you wonder at low fertility rates?? Next up is no one to care for you in Memory Care.
17
Who in her right mind would want to bring a child into the mess we've created? People don't even know if they're going to have healthcare after December 31 of this year, let alone a job or a place to live. Having kids in this country now is bordering on pure insanity.
28
It's so surprising to me how many educated people don't even think about that kind of thing. The people I work with are dropping kids right and left, and they don't even understand that when their kids are grown, it will be hard to find birds, and their parks will be parking lots, and there will be nothing but concrete and buildings as far as the eye can see. I talk to them about plants and wildlife issues, and they look at me as though I am a curiosity. They don't even care.
19
Planet is grossly over-populated in context of resources--either we slash our numbers or they'll be slashed for us by thermageddon & cascading ecollapse. Feel for those saddled by GOP w/undischargeable student debt--should be amortized by tax on Trump elites.
7
Along with immediate economic concerns, Climate Change was consistanly given as a reason not to have children.
Let that sink in.
What's the point of having children if they will be curses to draught, famine, an increase in natural
disasters, and wars against other climate refuges?
33
Stability leads to lower birth rates. In stressful environments there is a genetic benefit to having children early. It's a genetic natural adaptation that humans go through. In stable times however, there is no driving force for early procreation or having numerous children. Plus, people become more rational and adult as they age through their twenties. Meaning that if they do have kids their is a higher likelihood that their decision to do so is based on a reasoned decision. This is all known by the religious folks who use the fairy tales they tell their kids as a means of stressing them through fear. Combine that with the religious folks propensity to keep their children ignorant of reality and you have a stressed fearful and ignorant person who will have a propensity to have children before they make a reasoned decision.
Anyway, we don't have a shortage of people, we have too many. It's just that our leaders, and most people really, are greedy and so we have an exploitative system that needs slave fodder for "economic growth" and "jobs".
Let me just add that most Trump voters aren't mad because they don't have a job, they are mad because they do have a job.
16
Recent articles on egg freezing say that it's not a safe bet for delaying children. The success rate for a birth from frozen eggs is quite low. This information should be added to the article!
3
It's interesting...I would think parents would be thinking about school shootings all day everyday from K-1 to College Graduation.
this world isn't fit for kids...
20
A 20-year-old today grew up with multiple school shootings and will likely factor them into any decision to have children. I consider schools shootings like older Americans' 9/11 -- that is, a defining moment that will forever live in our minds, regardless of one's political, ethnic, etc., background. The world is forever changed for young people. They know schools can be the site of tremendous tragedy.
10
The recession is ending, but salaries art not rising as fast as the cost of living. Paying the rent or a mortgage needs two paychecks. It is not rocket science -it costs a lot of money to have kids these days and that money is not there.
22
What’s with all the hand-wringing???
The world population is double what it was when I was born less that 50 years ago; we’re in the midst of the 6th great extinction; the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate; and we’re running out of water.
We can only hope that birth rates fall like this in EVERY country.
25
If it did fall, where would all the desperate refugees and immigrants come from?
3
Ours is a finite planet that cannot and will not accommodate limitless human reproduction. We don't need more babies. There are plenty of other things to do with one's life, and pet cats are enough to take care of.
Reproducing to get old-age caregivers is a Ponzi scheme in which the younger generation loses. As it is, that generation is already experiencing debt slavery caused by student loans, and foregoing an education just to avoid them forecloses earning potential and meaningful work, so that idea is a non-starter for many, if not most.
The carbon footprint of each human, especially those in a developed nation such as the United States, is massive: 9,441 tons. Other eco-friendly measures are a pittance by comparison.
The human population of this planet is 7.6 billion, yet its carrying capacity for our species is far less thanks to the use and abuse it has had inflicted upon its ecosystems by the Industrial Age. This is the Anthropocene Epoch now, and the idea that the United States ought to increase its population from its current 326 million is one that ignores reality.
24
In our fami!y, in my parent's generation, children were more likely the result of too many martinis than deliberate choice. In the 1930s and 40s there weren't IUDs and birth control pills, morning after pills and legal abortion. We talk about financial insecurity leading to lower birth rates these days, but the availability of birth control is a powerful factor. If it had been available in 1939, I probably wouldn't be here.
23
I miss living in the US.. however, in Germany:
-paid “mother leave” for 6 weeks prior and 8 weeks after at full salary
- option to take off full year at 65% of salary (capped); if both parents split the time (doesn’t have to be equal)you get 14 months
- company has to allow you to come back to your former position
- a few hundred euros each month from the state for having a kid
- daycare (age one) costs anywhere from free to a few hundred euros a month, prior to a that a “day mother” will take small groups, around 5 euros an hour, also subsidized
- if you have public health insurance (85% do), kids join free on parent’s insurance — all wellness exams, immunizations etc, doctors visits etc are free
- as health insurance isn’t tied to a job, part time work etc is totally possible
- universities cost next to nothing (few hundred euros)
We can choose to change our system. The problem in the US is that people view kids as only the parents’ responsibility rather than the future of the country. We don’t support their health, childhood development, their education, etc. and then are surprised that young people are having less?
62
Germany had to import a million Syrian refugees to fill jobs because the birth rate in Germany has been so far below the United States. All those baby buying government programs were ineffective.
Good post, Germany is definitely one of the countries that many of my engineering students have moved to, as do STEM grads in other fields, and it's much more conducive to starting a family as you say. The universal health insurance is especially valuable, making it easier to work part-time or start a business, and you can get a college-level education without any debt there. Even with the language the German society is very helpful, with lots of German-language lessons to help out the Americans , Canadians and Britons who go there in greater numbers now. France has similar policies and thus is also a major destination for emigrating Americans. They're not perfect by any means but they get the basics of family formation and support right.
18
Wow, sorry, but you really have completely misinterpreted or misunderstand the news. You do realize those were REFUGEES, seeking asylum from war, right? This is different than IMMIGRANT programs.
And most of the Syrian refugees don't have jobs, as they don't have the German nor the skills level -- they are a big burden on the state and one of the reasons that the right is becoming more popular.
Germany let a million people for humanitarian reasons, not to "fill jobs".
6
The age range of 20 to 45 is ridiculously broad; given the percentage of young Americans who choose to pursue a college education, it's also silly to include people as young as 20 in a survey that also includes people old enough to be their parents (44-45.) Few 20 year olds who have any desire to be part of the middle class (very broadly defined) would be capable of doing this independently at age 20, while also having children.
That said, it should startle everyone, including the NYT editorial staff that declining economic prospects still stand out as the primary reason that people in this survey are having fewer children. In earlier surveys published in the NYT, having resources but perceiving declining economic prospects (and voting for Trump) was interpreted as a vote not based on economic concerns, but on racism. The reality is that the rise of political figures like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being driven all around by declining economic prospects that the NYT and other news outlets have been ignoring to a large extent for many years.
10
It should come as no surprise to anybody if people opt not to have kids. If you want people to have more kids, think “future tax payers of America”, then you’ve got to make it easier—or let in more immigrants. We as a society have to understand that parenting is the engine of our future society. Without new citizens, how will this crumbling society continue? The only reason I had kids was the chemical messaging from the hormones overwhelmed my rational, critical thinking. If you had asked me these questions at 24, I would have selected about five of these reasons for never having kids, but by 27, I was pregnant and desperate to be so. In retrospect, I feel betrayed by those hormones because I would not make the same “decisions” again, knowing what I know now.
What has surprised me since, is the hostility to people with young kids. It seems to me, anyone having kids is performing a very import public service. Society and the human race in general benefits from this incredible task that drains one of so much (literally and figuratively!), and yet it is viewed as a totally personal choice. Seems surprisingly blind that we as a society don’t understand that people who opt to have children are doing us all a huge favor.
5
Soon only the rich will be able to afford children. With healthcare costs skyrocketing, the environmental devastation caused by too many humans vying for their place in the sun (our culture of greed), the sheer uncertainty of any future at all...I am always amazed when I see a baby these days. "The Audacity of Hope," as President Obama would say.
I was 36 when I finally reluctantly married and 37 when I had my only child. My mother was 19 when she had my sister and 20 when I was born, 18 months later. My parents planned to have four children, but stopped at two (I think our mother was worn out and our dad was otherwise occupied). The Mormon families around us had ten, twelve, sometimes MORE kids, and their mothers "encouraged" their older daughters to act as surrogate mothers to the younger ones. Now each sibling is a grandparent to 100 or so children.
Although I am happy and grateful to have one brilliant and beautiful child, if I ever wanted more, I'd definitely get a CAT, as shown in this story's photo.
16
Millennials don't even want to own a car or a bike, let alone a house or have a partner (the percentage of unpartnered Americans 25-34 is at a record at 61%). Responsibility of a child would be unthinkable to many.
8
Anyone who thinks ‘the economy is doing well’ is so far out of touch it is staggering. Just because the shareholders are doing well doesn’t mean average people are any better off.
The economy, in a grand sense, is fundamentally broken and needs fundamental restructuring. ‘Recovery’ is not even remotely enough to address the issues people face.
24
Young couples can’t afford the cost of pregnancy! Middle class and working class couples can’t afford the doctors, the hospitals and the dislocation that pregnancy and then child birth causes. When people are working at jobs with no permancy or benefits having a family is impossible.
Our government has abandoned the midddle and working class.
15
Our government is us. We are the government. We are all responsible. If we want things to change, it has to be a societal movement. This is where I see the US's hyper-individualistic society creating its own problems. I've lived in SE Asia for years, where so many people have much fewer opportunities and money than Americans, yet there is no talk of not having children or giving up. People find ways through their extended families and communities to make things work when it comes to having and raising children.
1
Americans, like those who read/comment on this venerable newspaper, aspire to meaningful, productive lives AND good parents to their children. At a minimum, we want to work to provide a bright future for them. And be able to nurture them when they are young. The cycle repeats itself. Our country would benefit economically by providing incentives for the productive class to be able to have children - like subsidized child care, pre-school, tax credits during the first 10 years etc. This is a opportunity strategic for government to shape society. Instead, government reacts but fails to plan. It is tragic and ironic beyond belief that those who work the least and contribute nothing to society receive governmental subsidies for housing, healthcare, and school. They, not us, will be the next generation of Americans.
5
I'd bet dollars to gluten-free doughnuts that there is a bifurcated distribution between the non-religious/non-affiliated/agnostic/atheists who are not having kids, and the religious who are.
12
My ridiculously over-religious sister and her husband have nine children. They tried to have 11 but a miscarriage scratched two twins on the way.
11
Religion has caused many if not most of humanity's ills why not this one? Believing in the ridiculous is its own insane reward I think.
14
To those who suggest that the government providing more services might address some of the financial insecurity concerns raised in this article, I would say look to Europe, at least as it relates to the birthrate issue. In most European countries, where social democracy values reign, the birthrate is below that of the U.S.
There may be good reasons to adopt Euro-style social democracy practices, but raising the birthrate should not be considered among them. Other factors seem to be at play.
6
This isn't really accurate anymore, France, many Nordic countries and Ireland with esp. comprehensive family benefits have a higher birth rate than the US now. (And as FYI it's not due to immigrants there who, despite all the loud headlines, are still a small part of the population, France's overall higher birth rate is overwhelmingly of native French Catholic).
I think what you'd noticed is simply result of a lagging trend that's only now making itself clear, that is, the USA's comparatively family-unfriendly policies are only now causing the birth rate to nosedive, while they're starting to go up in Europe with their more supportive policies. In the past, the effect of the USA's harsh policies was masked by higher immigrant birth rates (particularly for immigrating Latino and Muslim immigrants) and also by higher religiosity. But both of those masking effects are now subsiding with both Latino and Muslim populations having lower birth rates even in their home countries, while the American evangelical Christianity levels (as well as observant Mormons) continue to drop precipitously. Also the US is now more urbanized and less rural, another former differentiating factor relative to Europe.
so it's more and more an apples to apples comparison, and the US total fertility rate is dropping steeply due to lack of universal healthcare, expensive childcare and student loans, while Europe's more family friendly policies are making it easier to start families there.
13
Would you, as a child, rather be born to a 20yr-old mother, or a 40yr-old. In the discussions of delayed parenting, freezing eggs, and such, no one seems to consider the effects of mother's age upon the child. The subtext is that the child's experience is beneath consideration.
Another consideration is grand-parentage. As the trend develops, you may be 80 years old before you see the first grandbrat.
2
I think it'd be better to be born to a 40 yr-old. More mature, ready to handle and spend time with you, has figured their stuff out, etc.
16
My husband and I got married later because that is just how life works out sometimes, and I was 36 and 40 when our babies were born. Yes, a generation ago that would have been considered old...but now it isn't uncommon and I don't believe I was less energetic or caring than the younger moms around at the time...possibly just the opposite. And 80 is the new 70, so I don't believe grandparents are missing out in the equation either.
6
My wife and I have been married seven and a half years. It's almost a daily struggle for us to survive food, housing and other bills. I don't even want to know what it would be like if we even had to care for even one human child. That's why our kids are the furry, four legged kind.
29
Many Americans of an earlier generation would characterize any government action to address the issues cited in the survey as "socialism". This includes a majority of our Representatives and Senators. They simply are too rich and too far beyond the child-rearing stage of life to understand how the policies they support impact real young people. The young people are responding in a very logical manner to the world they live in.
For those who are disappointed over a lack of grandkids - it is well within your power to bring about change that supports your kids. When you get to the ballot box you could vote for candidates who can actually articulate policy positions that address the concerns cited in the survey. Many of our current Republican politicians characterize themselves as "family-friendly", but have no actual policy initiatives to back up that characterization.
Want grandkids? Demand that your representatives support policy that supports families. Examples - paid leave, including sick leave. Education - quit cutting funding. A child care credit that bears some resemblance to the actual cost of childcare.
28
Well-said: Kamala & Elizabeth can fix!
1
I remember this same discussion taking place in the early 70's, a time when the birth rate also dropped. There was much hand-wringing about how schools would have to close (many did, and converted to condominium buildings) only to have the pendulum swing back in the 80's and 90's.
5
Almost all of the reasons can be summarized as “financial” having a baby and provide the same life style we once lived and enjoy it is becoming impossible for middle class folks, the economy and its benefits goes for the very rich not the regular guy, the cost of education have skyrocketed lately, having a house the consequential American Dream will be very difficult with stagnant salaries.
19
I am sad because I love babies and families. I loved being a mother, despite the very real costs. But, this is probably a good trend. We are heading into very cruel times.
26
Met my husband at 36, married him two months ago as my 40th bday looms, and we’re expecting our first in a few months. Would have loved to have been a younger first time mom but it’s not easy to find the person to be a real life partner
In the meantime I got a 4 year degree, my MBA, worked too hard but traveled and have had amazing life experiences. I wouldn’t have traded any of that...well maybe for the ability to actually spend real time with my baby. I’m lucky that I’ll get (some) maternity leave but with the expense of child care, I’ll be back in the workforce much quicker than I’d like. Waiting lists for good facilities for childcare are months long and will
cost ~ 2300/month. Wished I lived in the EU where I’d get 6 months - full year protected leave.
34
Our reason for not having second child is absolutely the finances. It's a hard choice because my brother is my rock, and I feel I'm denying my son that bond of a sibling. I feel guilty because my mom risked her health and life to ensure I had a sibling, whereas I am looking at my bank account. But we need to consider the quality of our son's life, and right now, as tight as things are, we can have one parent primarily at home, raising him until he's school aged. If we had more children, I don't know that we can do afford to do that. My second pregnancy ended in a miscarriage last year, and we're still paying off the hospital bills for that and for my son's birth, so I am both emotionally and financially drained.
And the worse thing is, we are the only ones among my friend group (all in their later twenties and their thirties) to have children, purely because we finished college exactly long enough after the financial crisis not to be underemployed. And we're the exception as well because we are married, own a home, and our cars - weren't these standard for the generation before us? Something has to change with how our society is organized, and tax dollars and public policies need to return to supporting families and incentivize families, not corporations and billionaires. I promise you, if millennials weren't so cash strapped, they would be spending and stimulating the economy more than any corporation with underpaid workers, overvalued investors, and offshore factories.
62
And the Republican solution to the economic insecurity experienced by so many people in this country and captured by the concerns expressed by people through this poll is to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
30
I know of two families that are at opposite ends of the parenting issue, both having children.
One family whose motto is "no woman should have more children than she has hands" and only has 2 now in their teens.
The other family has six with seventh on the way and feels that God gives every one of them to parent.
Both families have working parents with good jobs paying high salaries.
However, guess which one is better off financially.
17
Sometimes when I’m really stressed out I wonder if I should have just had one child. It’s so scary thinking about helping to pay for college and just day to day expenses especially for one with mental health issues that insurance never seems to cover, plus braces and even public school always needs donations to make up the funding gap. Not to mention my career seriously stumbled after my second was born. I feel bad for my daughter knowing she’ll face even harsher realities. I want her to get an education but know the real barrier comes with motherhood in the USA, not getting a college degree.
49
My father deserted the family (of 6 children) when I was 8. I decided at that point that having children was too fraught with peril. I'm 67 now and have never regretted being childless. I have a long term partner and have led, and am leading, a productive life.
98
Like you, I was an observant child. I watched and listened. When the women talked about someone who was “PG”, they also said ‘little teapots have big ears’. I knew what was being said about life from an early age. Because of this and other factors (a baby brother born when I was 10), I concluded that having children was “women’s work” and the fate of the children fell to the mother, despite her fate. At 22, I saw a photo in Life Magazine that emphasized a new idea: “ZERO POPULATION GROWTH”. The photo of a huge crowd emphasized the result of a couple with four children, each of their offspring having four children, on down the line to grandchildren & great-grandchildren. I decided to NOT have children. Eventually I married a divorced man with 3 children, one for him, his ex and me. I have no regrets and the pleasure of his procreation.
12
Educational institutions have put too much emphasis on college education for women and not enough on helping young men find stable occupations and helping both genders with practical skills. Most young people today do not have the skills to live successfully on a limited budget. They do not know how to plan and prepare economical meals or do home construction and repairs. Many do not know options for saving money, such as moving to a lower cost area or renovating an older mobile home outside the city. Young people need to learn practical math for budgeting and life planning and hear from people who have found successful ways to live in unconventional ways. Many young women would like to be stay-at-home mothers, but their husbands do not have good jobs or they do not know how to live on a low budget. Many do not have any information about adjusting to children or marriage. Child and adult development should be essentials at the high school level, as well as information to help students see both the difficulties and practical benefits of marriage. High schools should prepare students to have the beginnings of practical and relational skills to avoid the worst pitfalls of young adulthood, rather than stressing college above everything.
17
There are many points of your post with which I disagree. 1. "Too much emphasis on college for women." Are you saying that men deserve a college education but not women? You say, too, that young people lack "practical skills" but in 2018 going to college is practical and is where "practical skills" are obtained. College is just as much the "real world" as washing dishes. There are next-to-no jobs for coalworkers and janitors in 2018. Fixing cars requires knowledge of complicated computers, which benefits from college education. Why should young people learn to remodel old mobile homes in "lower cost areas" if they can afford middle class areas by getting a college education? Most studies demonstrate that graduates with college degrees have higher earnings than graduates with high school degrees, so why shouldn't they trust the research and aim for a middle class lifestyle rather than settling right off the bat for a mobile home and a working class job? Second, you know "many young women who would like to be stay-at-home mothers." Where are these women because I have not met them? I meet young female students who want jobs of their own--with and without children. Third, why do these stay-at-home mother wannabes in your scenario need to be married to men? Why can't they be married to women? Why can't they be financially secure and also a single working woman?
40
"Renovate an older mobile home outside the city" - seriously? For whom is that is an appealing life choice??
11
Ha ha. I lived in a low cost of living area after graduating from college. Surprise, surprise...the only low cost was housing. Medical, dental, gas, all of the true costs of living were same as in high cost of living area.
I saved up enough to move, and changed to a high cost of living area where there were salary increases and management didn't assume women would drop out of the workforce after marriage. Better yet, the rental housing for my demographic was up to code and not infested with roaches.
Unfortunately my kid can't do the same...the NIMBY attitudes in many areas are preventing young people from living where the actual jobs are. The apt I first rented now goes for double....and wages for the job I had have not doubled, in thirty years. Boomer selfishness again.
7
I had two kids just under the wire, the 2nd born when I was almost 42. Of course I love them madly, though the younger teen is currently a bit of a pill. But if I had it to do again, in 2018, I wouldn't have kids. I had no idea how excruciatingly hard it would be to be two older working parents of young kids with zero family support. After they were born we didn't have a night alone for years. Beyond this, however, I'm extremely pessimistic about the future of children born today. US politics is bad enough, but there's also the fact that we humans are growing exponentially and decimating the ecosystems on which we depend. I applaud those who make the choice to have no (or fewer) kids. I hope they spend at least a bit of their free time nurturing life forms that already exist.
97
America- the land of the wealthy, immature, unhappy, and selfish. It is here that we proclaim that the lives of others are not worth living. Our society is killing itself with selfishness.
15
I disagree. I do not want children for the primary reason that I do not think I would be a suitable parent. My home life was psychologically abusive, and I worry I would pass on those traits (genetic and learned). I know many others, as indicted in the survey, who feel the same. My generation cares very much about the future of our nation and planet. We simply feel we can best contribute to it in collaboration with our existing families, friends, and partners.
66
What, Hunt?!
You're comment reflected poorly on you.
I know several young parents who are hard working, responsible, parents. Some have 3 children, most have 2, and few have 1. None of them are wealthy, immature, unhappy, or selfish. They are active in their neighborhoods, with friends from work, and making sure that their immediate and extended family are doing well.
America is shooting itself in the food with it current hate-filled rhetoric and envy. What America needs to do is find a way to all come together again. I hope Americans will try to find a way. Another Civil War is not the solution.
4
Our leaders are selfish and greedy. While they and their big donors enjoy socialism for the super rich, young couples continued to be squeezed. Stop blaming those who work hard and make hard choices when you should be blaming those who have it all and have decided that they will take everything from everyone else.
13
the big kahuna as I see it is the innovation of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s.
We went through the free-love Seventies ('don't sleep in the subway darling'), orgied until we hit the wall with AIDS' Grim Reaper around 1983, turned our attention to money-making in the '90's, and now we're in the 'noughties and all Uber'ised we are conditioned to think only about ourselves - and those little bubkins can be so messy, stress-inducing with unwanted crying and just take up All Of Your Time !
Now that young adults don't want cars as that would take away from small-screen-staring time, it's an easy next step to not wanting children - wot !? I'd actually have to get up and do something for someone else - and - like - be on call 24x7 ? - bleeach !
11
Speak for yourself. In the 60's I did hitchhike around America. But in the 70's I was having children and going to school. By the 80's I had divorced and continued to raise my children on my own.
Having a car is an ongoing expense that is no longer necessary if one lives where there's decent transportation. I didn't use one all through the 90's. While you may have been busy making money I was busy helping to save lives.
I know several young parents. They are hardworking, responsible people who are interested in their communities. One is my living room right now ironing clothes, she comes 3 hours every Friday to help me around the house. She has a full time job as dispatcher for Emergency Services. She and her husband help to prepare meals for his grandparents. They're busy in their community service. They've bought a small home. They're 25 yo; she has a college degree and he's a professional electrician. She recently lost there first pregnancy but after a recovery time, they plan to try again.
It is not fair to saddle an entire people or generation with your narrow observations.
9
Those "terrible socialist" countries like Denmark have much better policies for women to have children.. time off, child care, etc.
And they don't have college debt.
110
The socialized Denmark birth rate is indeed lower than the US. In Germany it's lower still. You can lead a socialist to free services but you can't make'em mate! Seriously, another key factor to low birth rates is affluence. The better you have it, the less children you have. There's a wonderful TED talk by the late Hans Rosling on this topic. Of course affluence is not all-encompassing, there are other factors as the article outlines, but interesting just the same, especially if we want to reduce world population without resorting to draconian means.
4
Denmark is a capitalist country. It does have a strong social spending and a high tax rate. All that spending on women have not helped it. It's fertility rate is 1.69 which is lower than USA.
You will have to depend on migrants who soon will overrun your shared values and culture.
3
And yet, in spite of those benefits, Denmark has a lower birth rate than the United States does. Denmark, 1.69, Norway, 1.75, while Sweden is 1.88, compared to 1.84 in the US.
1
9 out of the top 10 reasons are economic.
If the party of family values actually cared about families (and women) - instead of looting the treasury for billionaires we might actually want to breed.
But as is? Nah.
98
no. it does not help even the most progressive european countries. Their fertility rates inspite of all the social spending is lower than usa.
The highest ranked 'developed nation' is Israel at 57, probably on account of religious culture.
Without a religious culture or a patriarchal culture woman will chose to have no or less babies and thereby defining the end of that culture after some time.
Nations with strong religious or patriarchal culture will survive and eventually rule the others by migration.
2
Can you imagine a firefighter or police officer ever asking you for a credit card number? Healthcare should never be a question of money.
I am low income, didn't even go to a doctor, and Obama care costed me thousands of dollars.
Implement universal healthcare for God's sake and people will have more babies.
36
Are you aware that universal healthcare is not free? We have it in France and we, plus our employers pay every month. The healthcare is better than in the USA, but it is managed; not free.
15
In part of the country, firefighters do bill for services. If your car is on fire, the nice men who help you will charge a couple thousand dollars.
6
How about we decrease our military budget and send free birth control to the countries who are sending us their destabilizing economic migrants (African, middle eastern and Central American countries). This would benefit the entire world. Subsidized birth control should be available everywhere, as we are in the verge of imploding.
81
I'm going to need you to expand on how migrants, somehow specifically from these countries, are economically "destabilizing." As birth rates decline, countries depend on immigration to fill the gap. It's like people forget that migrants often fill caretaker and other miscellaneous jobs that are hard to fill. Oh, and contribute to the tax pool and economy.
2
We played a hand in destabilizing most of those places and what you suggest is 100% eugenics. Israel did the same thing to African migrants - You don’t have the right to tell people to stop having children.
4
Correct highland. The left says we don't have the right to say they should use birth control but they also say we can't refuse their immigrants when they Over populate their countries and flood to the west. As usual, they want it both ways. Interestingly, most poor women in the third world would welcome access to birth control just like their western compatriots. Few women regard having more kids than they can support as a besting.
3
I didn't have children, because I never found a man who would be a good father.
33
Or conversely, no man you met saw you as a good mother and/or partner?
3
Sandhill. That sure hasn't stopped a lot of women.
4
Yes, isn't parenting so hard, stressful, fraught, logically unsound, environmentally irresponsible, terrifying, marriage dissolving, inconsiderate to the future unemployed/unhealthy/embattled adult, inequality perpetuating and weird.?
And this is coming from a former newborn!
People, you were babies once too. All the celebration and pride in the brave/brilliant/considerate (educated/western-northern euro/North American) child-free good people is exhausting. We get it, kids are annoying and being human is messed up. But can we still fight for better education/childcare/family support? Can we stop shaming the dirty, misguided "breeders? No one is saying it is the smart choice. But it is a human choice- so some humans are bound to make it no matter how bad it gets. They are not less than.
13
I think you have the cultural zeitgist backwards. How many "Blame the Breeders" parties have you attended in your lifetime? For me, the number is 0. How many baby showers/reveal parties have you attended? For me, the number is 20+. What national holiday celebrates NOT being a parent? There is none. What national holidays celebrate being a parent? Mother's Day is in mid-May and Father's Day is in later June. Being a parent in a nuclear family (usually heterosexual) is naturalized, normalized, and celebrated. How many parents couldn't have survived their harrowing (fill in the blank) if not for the inspiring thoughts of their kids? On the other hand, consciously opting not to have children is questioned, pitied, and pilloried. It is the childless who need to move out of the margins into the center, so make some room! If I am describing the US culture here, imagine how much more constricting for the childless are wholly traditional cultures like China, India, Catholic countries?
11
Cynthia, PhD. Nope. Being child free is absolutely celebrated. “Consciously opting out”- oh how virtuous! It is the incessant self congratulations - Writing on not having kids, “I made a smart/brave choice and I’m oh so happy” vs. writing on parenting -centered on struggle, regret, loss of identity, severe depression, anxiety and isolation.
Don’t you get it, days celebrating parents are recognizing the tireless work that often goes unseen/unappreciated.
Not to mention, this article is not about a falling birth rate in “traditional cultures like India”- now that would be something.
1
Was “all of the above” an option for the survey?
27
This is truly the American Tragedy at its sharp point: a nation in which young people forgo life's richest, happiest, most lasting pleasure, for many reasons, but mainly, one way or another, because greed has so deeply and inescapably disfigured our society that we commit slow genocide upon ourselves, our traditions, our hopes for the future, even life on Earth.
MS 13 is not scary, folks. We are.
9
If my husband and I had had children, we'd probably have been unable to retire in a middle-class lifestyle. And with today's life spans and ageism in the workplace, retirement lasts 20-30 years or so. My husband and I were always thinking ahead, we both worked, we were not extravagant, we saved as much as we could. But now that we are both in our 60s we know for sure that kids would have killed our retirement plans. I don't consider it greedy to not want to end up as a 75-year-old waitress on minimum wage and my husband as a Walmart greeter when our Social Security is not enough to support us, which it isn't. But with no kids, we have been able to buy a senior-friendly house and feel reasonably sure we can pay our future living and medical expenses. We also don't have to help care for or support grandchildren.
62
Frances, you summed it up perfectly. I'm in my 30s and don't plan to have kids. My wife and I are paying off school loans (no rich parents), a mortgage, and responsibly saving for retirement (I think it's wise to assume soc sec won't exist for us at all) and ever-sprialing medical costs. We also like to explore the world with an occasional trip--and I worked a second job for a couple years to do some of those. Kids aren't in the cards for us, financially-speaking. They might have been if I chose a well-paying procedural-based specialty, but I didn't. I'm not bitter--parenthood never seemed that interesting to me anyway.
5
Greed? Genocide? This is some highly dramatic purple prose. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pleasures in life, and I'm sure having a child is one of those, but I can attest that smelling a flower; tasting a spicy wine; watching a sunset; walking across a graduation stage; getting a first paycheck; playing with a kitten; helping one's parent with new technology; getting a promotion are also lasting pleasures. There is not one single "right" way to live life. You can prefer your lifestyle but don't devalue others who enjoy their own very different lifestyles.
11
There's a simple solution to developed nations with low fertility rates: IMMIGRATION. Why do we need to pop out more babies when we're approaching an already dire 8 billion bodies? You don't need new humans when you can simply bring in ones already alive who are itching to work hard & better their own lives. And also who wants to gamble with genetics? I was born with a blood disorder, passed down fron both my mother amd father that had a faulty hemoglobin gene- it's been the bane of my existence.
23
Actually it is a false assumption that we always need more bodies in a particular place. Sometimes less is also better. If the US went from 300 million to 250 million that would be fine too. Isn't that the goal, to have less people on the planet? Yep it is. Take some of these South American countries having a tough time, maybe we should be investing there locally so they don’t have to risk it all to get the US. That would be a nice option and eventually lead to less population in their area thereby helping to solve the world overpopulation bubble we find ourselves in.
4
Never wanted kids and never regretted not having them. I can recall being told years ago to "go ahead and have them and see how you love them once they are here". That struck me, then and now, as a bizarre social experiment. Go ahead and have kids and hope it all works out and I love them, despite having no desire to have them? No, thanks.
In this equally-bizarre US political and social environment we now live in, I often find myself thinking that I am glad I do not have children whose futures I would be worried about. It must be frightening to many parents to contemplate children growing up in such a violent, hate-filled world. Or one that is poisoned environmentally.
My DNA ends with me. I'm not only fine with that, I'm happy with it.
80
Fewer kids better for the whole planet. Rest of you work to bring up, educate the others born. WIn-win-win!
24
Pretty sad that the move "9 to 5" came out in 1980 and we women are still having to make the same choices as 38 years ago, only on less pay and more hours.
25
"[the US] used to have higher fertility for reasons like more teenage pregnancies, more unintended pregnancies and high fertility among Hispanic immigrants. But those trends have recently reversed, in part because of increased use of long-acting birth control methods like IUDs."
survey data please. estrogen and progestin pills/implants might also be more popular, but how popular? latex condoms sometimes seem like they are given like candy.
also, the statement implies that use of long-acting birth control is more widespread in other countries with fewer teenage pregnancies and with fewer unintended pregnancies. is this true?
4
Interesting the dramatic drop in child birth in the most recent two years coincides with the election of Donald Trump. The younger generation is afraid to bring children into the world with a demagogic leader intent on destroying natural resources, it is no wonder they are afraid to bring new lives into the world in America. It is disheartening and sad, at the same time.
29
In Denmark, one of the most politically progressive nations on the planet, the government is now aggressively encouraging people to make babies.
Russia has been doing this for some time...Sweden, Poland, and Japan close behind.
Without sufficient children being born, economic collapse is guaranteed. Government planners and economists know this all too well.
How long before the US starts a campaign to encourage young girls to pop out a few kids? Maybe we give them college credit after the kids are born?
Maybe a Hollywood-style public service campaign, using Marvel superheroes to extol the virtues of pregnancy?
The mind reels.
4
So what about economic collapse? Can you breath or drink money?
1
Immigration would fix that. Look at global rather than national fertility rates.
1
I hope my daughter has at least one child, but that's her choice, either way.
8
This is a very wise decision and one that would serve the earth better if it were done worldwide. The world is now over populated and growing more so. this is the world gone amuck and we see it more and more everyday..We citizens of this planet can not sustain . Logic 101
20
When considering whether or not have kids, the deciding factor was the possibility of them growing up to be teenage boys. That and the coming climate change apocalypse. So, no to kids...and yes to some very sweet cats (and a dog).
28
As a 55 year old black woman without children, I can honestly tell you that it was the best decision I ever made. Men always will say that it's terrible for a women to have any children. But, in the black community I see young men spreading their seed and leaving the woman alone, broke and in despair. Most of my girlfriends are also child free, traveling,graduate school,starting a business. Now women have options and use them.Black and Latino women have the most to lose, so chose wisely.
55
My daughter has a master's degree in social work. Her fiance' is a teacher. They would literally have to give up one of their incomes for quality child care. Yet living on the one income would be tough. I am not yet retired to be able to help. This is real and if it is affecting two college grads with good jobs, imagine what the options are for less educated people. Wages have been stagnating for 30 years so we can pay CEO's ten or more million dollars per year. This is one of the consequences and it is unbelievably bad for our nation as a whole. Wake up Republicans...you're policies are dragging us all down and dragging down the country's future as well. Ironically, they're also against immigration...so, who ARE our future American workers going to be???
55
Speaking purely anecdotally, it's hard to believe that people who are having children are making fewer babies. I didn't have my one single child until I was 44, an act which suddenly thrust me into a world of women with children, and my daughter is part of only a very few families I know with only children. So, I wonder what is this decrease in children from- perhaps 4 to 3, or 3 to 2? Hardly an imminent population collapse, but perhaps a small correction, or a situation of fewer people fighting over shrinking resources. (I did not have my child late in order to gain financial stability; we basically have none, but somehow got one in before the gate shut- best best best thing I ever did.)
6
We let everything get out of hand, fail to supply health care, maternity leave, child care, and let the costs fall on the parents - who subside big companies by providing them with workers. Its gone decades without a decent break for parents and families. Now is almost impossible to reverse the trend. Except thru massive immigration.
9
It sounds like some heavy-duty campaigning needs to be organised. Children are citizens, and the state has a responsibility for the health and welfare of its citizens, doesn't it? We have plenty of our own problems but one thing we do have is a system that aims to ensure that parents have the opportunity to form a tight-knit family in the first few weeks of a child's life. BTW, ours isn't the most generous system in the EU!
https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay
I'm a retired woman, 66 and never had children. Went to college on the GI Bill and always worked a white collar job. Women like me were considered oddities when I was in my 20's through 40's. Instead of kids, I spent time traveling, owning my own home and doing very fulfilling volunteer work. I was fortunate to be able to retire at 65. I have never regretted being childless.
Now that there are more of us childless seniors, young people view us as a pretty decent alternative to parenthood. That may be another reason that young people, especially women, are skipping parenthood. You don't have to reproduce to have a happy life.
48
Having a baby meant sacrificing a promotion, a pay rise, probably my career that I poured in so much of my 20s into, time to sit still or think, an easier path to financial security, old hobbies, sleep, we time ... The child makes me irrationally happy and I would choose her all over again. But I wish it was easier to retain my identity and drive between the demands of being career mom and just a mom. Something has to give and for moms, it’s first herself ...
24
Well said, Sara!
1
It's not only the young 'uns.
I'm 53 and decided against having children 23 years ago. After what seemed like almost predictable job layoffs in my industry, I figured I'd hold off.
Then after 9/11, I couldn't get a job for 4 years.
I decided it would be a burden to myself and a child to keep her mired in a cycle of financial insecurity. I wanted to be able to really provide for a kid, and also take a decent stretch of time off. Meanwhile, the clock just kept ticking.
Had I spawned, my son or daughter would've been among the many kids today who are struggling in life and with the decision to procreate.
None of my immediate circle of female friends has children, either. We're the weekend aunties to other peoples' kids. We've actually discussed all retiring under one roof in Europe.
I feel like I got robbed.
19
Sure people are working again, but wages still have not gone up, all while cost of living has. As someone who lost their job in the recession and has yet to sniff what I was once making, the idea of ever having children, barring a complete reversal of fortunes, is a fantasy.
25
One reason for this reluctance to have children is likely that the socially accepted definition of adequate parenthood has drastically escalated since the 1980s. Parents and society now expect that parents be intensively involved in their children's daily lives, that children, even well into their teens, be under almost constant supervision by parents or institutions, almost never alone (except maybe in their own room with at least one parent also at home worrying about the dangers of the internet). In our nation's more fertile past, this level of nearly constant involvement was not expected and most kids were raised in a way that is now called "free-range" and considered either "unconventional" and "daring" or "borderline child abuse". No wonder so many parents nowadays talk so much about how difficult and tiring it is to have children, even just one or two. Remember when four or five was common and there was a lot less complaining.
51
Excellent point, Guy Baehr !
8
Well said....also let’s not discount CPS and family courts influence to second guess and determine whether a couple are good or bad parents. Government overreach is a major cause in today’s society.
1
I'm 78 and was a free range child. Most of us were in those days. I had a bike, a baseball mitt, ice skates, a bb gun, and my dog Pluto, and lots of space and freedom to roam. It must be awful to be a child these days - so stifling - so rule bound, pc, and conformist. Hovering parents and snowflake children.
9
Treat people with student loan debt like other debtors, and let student loans be discharged in bankruptcy. Student loan creditors shouldn't be preferred over other creditors. More young people will have children then.
13
My prediction: In that case the student loan availability would dry up. Maybe the answer is some different method of funding education as they have elsewhere in this world. Of course that would mean greater selectivity in what may be studied at public expense and greater selectivity on who might be admitted for such subsidizing. It also might mean more demands for proven performance to remain in the program. Would that fly here?
5
If student loan availability dried up, it would not be a bad thing. Why not reinstitute the GI Bill, and anyone who does 4 years of service gets tuition free? Furthermore, when colleges can rely on students, because students have student loans, everyone from builders of unnecessary moneymakers like expensive fast food restaurants on campus to apartments cash in, while quality education plummets. Plenty of students would be better off in 2-year vocational school, graduating with a skill, with a better chance of a livelihood without slavery to lifelong debt.
3
The financial realities of childbearing should come as no surprise to anyone. Kids are expensive. With job insecurity, low pay, no pension and poor benefits young people have little left over for the "luxury" of a child. Disposable diapers alone may cost as much as a monthly college loan. Health insurance may leave a young couple with a large hospital bill and a new baby. Twenty and thirty somethings still need room mates to afford the rent. Our birth rate will continue to drop until the middle class is revived, not attacked with things like a fake "tax relief" bill. Anti-labor, anti-education and anti-fair housing policies prevent our future children and grandchildren from ever being born.
71
It seems that the smarter, more qualified people are deciding to not have kids and the less intelligent people who don’t plan ahead are having a lot of kids. The outcome of this pattern can’t be good. (I’m probably not the smartest, but I waited until I was 35 to have my first kid and am about to have my second/last. Kids are SO draining - to myself and the environment, but I think it’s a good thing when people who are willing to put all their time and energy into raising a kid decide to do it.)
29
Indeed we are already living in Luke Wilson’s movie from the 90’s called Idiocracy.
10
I agree with kryptogal: my pets make me happier than my past boyfriends. I was just at a job interview (again), and I was asked (again) what I do "for fun"? It is not socially acceptable to say that I play with my cats, so I mentioned visiting my nearby relatives. But the reality is that my nearby relatives stress me out for complicated reasons. But my cats help me to relax; to enjoy life; to play; to put my problems in perspective. I have heard parents proclaim that their lives truly began when they had children, but I think I am okay without children, and my current life still counts. And my pets are probably making me happier than I would ever be as a single, more poor, more stressed out, busier adult. Why do I have to be ashamed at job interviews that my idea of fun is playing with my endlessly entertaining cats; reading; and writing? Why are job interviews so conventionally minded in 2018 that pets are not an acceptable answer to how to have fun?
72
I don't understand why interviewers can ask personal questions. You are supposed to cough up secrets to a stranger--what about just asking about work habits and skills, and then giving the hire a trial month is see if everyone is happy?
15
...Why do I have to be ashamed at job interviews that my idea of fun is playing with my endlessly entertaining cats...
-------- you don't. it shows good sense . . .
4
Back in the 70’s when I was making the whether-to-marry/whether-to-have-children decision, it was clear to me that the U.S., as a country, was (and still is) very ungenerous toward parents and children. Aside from a fleetingly funded social service organization or church, I and my wife would have essentially been on our own. To manage financially, I would likely end up doing work I didn’t like (maybe my wife too), and there would be significant ongoing strain on the marriage (borne out by lots of subsequent social science research). I envisioned years and years of child care payments after the divorce. Not for me. I married late and am now reasonably happily retired with likely enough resources to make it through, despite never having earned as much as $50,000 - and having come close to that amount for only two or three years. Had I lived in northern Europe, I’d have known that my fellow citizens had my family’s back. Perhaps I’d have made a different decision.
45
I have two and would have two more if I could. The problems are money and time. We have enough money that we could make it work -- our lifestyle would have to change, but that's ok. But you can't "make" time. If I had more kids I would have to accept either that 1) my kids would all get a lot less time individually with their parents, or 2) my career will remain at its current plateau. I don't like either choice, so here we are, still thinking about it....
12
I think parenting trends have affected people's desire to have more children. It seems like helicopter parenting and the social pressure to not let your kids roam around like they use to results in parenting being an exhausting endeavor. As a result, folks feel like they don't have the energy to raise more children. Both my spouse and I come from larger families, but we will most definitely have less children than our parents. Furthermore, while we are likely considered somewhat more affluent, the increasing cost of college, extracurricular activities, childcare, etc. are significant deterrents to having more children. Maybe our children don't need all the "extras" that cost so much, but there is serious pressure to provide this to get our kids prepared for an unknown and rapidly changing future.
29
It's interesting the very reasons listed here by developed country residents for not having children or more children - political and economic instability (violence etc...), no economic opportunity, lack of education systems, health care etc... are the very conditions that characterize most areas of the world now experiencing the Earth threatening population explosion whose countries are bursting at the seams with uneducated hopelessly ill-prepared for integration into modern societies young people. The population explosion is occurring in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. In these countries people lead a precarious existence where the state is often almost non-existent and there is no social safety net (leaving out Petro states). The developing population responds to the chaos by relying on producing as many children as possible either because it is the only potential source of wealth (unpaid labour ) and social mobility and hoped for protection when they grow old. So instability, violence and chaos in the developing world is a developing country problem. We either work with the chaotic countries to improve conditions in those areas or face an uncontrollable tsunami of people cell phones in hand heading for the developed world.
14
Dude, they're having sex with no birth control!
Even if the men allowed their women to take it or if men would care enough to roll on a condom, they can't afford it.
Different cultures, different conditions, different levels of understanding about quality of life.
Educate the women about their bodies, give them a glimpse of, and a shot at, a better life, and they'll lead their communities out of poverty.
6
America's divorce courts have definitely put the kibosh on the the "perceived" benefits of committing to a family life with marriage and children. If and when the court systems and corresponding laws can return marriage to equal and fair treatment of both partner's in event of divorce, rather than a method to extract $$ from the parents and shovel it to the lawyers' pockets, then the situation will change. Until then, continue to expect fewer children and fewer marriages. Not complicated. That's just what America has become.
14
Anthony Bourdain died with only a million dollars, which is pretty low for someone with several hit shows and best seller books. But he had been divorced twice and was likely paying significant alimony and child support. They say he was working feverishly toward the end, perhaps to avoid being imprisoned as a deadbeat dad.
7
Exactly!! No coincidence that what you said correlates with an increase young men who have never fathered children getting vasectomies.
2
It seems that the biggest fear is that unless every generation has more people than the previous, the economy won't grow; and economic growth is an absolute necessity.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that this cannot continue forever, unless we suddenly grow a twin planet?
What we need to do, is to move toward economic systems that don't require unending growth. There's enough wealth to go around now, if it were shared. But to move toward`something else requires questioning our way of life at a level that NObody of any power or influence is willing even to consider. Indeed, questioning whether our economic system really is right for us in the long long run, is like blasphemy or worse.
107
I would still like to see some additional breakdown such as drop out, high school graduate, and college graduate. Also a breakdown along racial/ethnic backgrounds, and religious as well.
7
This is good to hear: women who have babies are not so happy anyway, men will have to step up it up if they want kids. As for not having as many as many as u want, well 2 kids is enough anyway. We are going to hit 8 BILLION on the plant soon, and as far as I know, people here in the US like having space, we don’t want to be England which has the highest population density in Europe. Bravo to women for enjoying life and not being a slave to your uterus. Maybe just have one down the line, and get a puppy for a sibling.
82
How is this not the headline: "Researchers say the United States could adopt policies that make it easier for people to both raise children and build careers. Government spending on child care for young children has the strongest effect."
The top reason for not having kids (64%) was unaffordable childcare. Along with that goes the necessity of finding childcare 8-12 weeks after the baby is born in order to keep your job. We need more women in Congress to start mandating support for paid family leave (for both parents), as well as support for high-quality preschool. Otherwise, our adult daughters see what their parents went through--one parent's entire income going to childcare--and they know it's an endless treadmill with very low benefits.
46
I’m 28 and have been married to the same woman for 6 years. We are both college educated, have masters degrees, and have a 2.5 year old with another child on the way. It’s called maturity and civic responsibility - stop being selfish, grow up, and thank your lucky stars that your parents decided to have you.
18
So, it's our "civic responsibility" to have babies? I actually laughed out loud at that. And startled my cat.
30
I'll never thank "my lucky stars"- more like unlucky stars as my parents gave me an inherited blood disorder. Whoopie!
9
You can't be selfish toward children who never existed. And there is nothing selfish or immature about devoting your life to a career and saving enough for retirement when you can no longer work.
31
The very biggest reason is that it's finally sinking in that having a baby 1) adds to a global population completely out of control 2) stresses already highly-stressed resources 3) consigns that baby to a world that is environmentally degrading at a quickening and starkly horrifying manner that will result in massive impacts on human populations.
Any rational, compassionate, thoughtful person would necessarily refrain from putting a new life into that jeopardy. To do otherwise is unthinkably cruel.
74
My parents said the same thing about the Cuban Missle Crisis..."How could anybody bring a child into the world that is going to be nuclear bombed"
Grandparents said the same thing about WW1
Great grandparents said the same thing about crash of 1897
The world has always been full of hardship. Having children is an act of hope and refusal to bow to the naysayers of the world.
8
Again, most commenters did not read completely.
The survey was comparing reasons from people that are planning to have FEWER KIDS THAN THEY WANTED, “their ideal”.
This is not about childless by choice, but accepting less than they would choose if childcare were more affordable, and other reasons.
18
To be fair, the second half was about why young adults aren't having children (at all) and 30% responded "no desire for children."
17
To me the most important factoid in the article is this: "The total fertility rate — which estimates how many children women will have based on current patterns — is down to 1.8, below the replacement level in developed countries of 2.1". Does no-one else see this as a problem? This country is literally dying since the fertility rate is too low to replace the population.
3
Heretofore this has not been a problem, since our rate of immigration combined with the higher birthrate of new Americans has made up the shortfall. But now that Trump and his anti-immigrant policies are in the ascendance, it is indeed a problem. If this approach is maintained, we are on the way to a declining population with its attendant issues.
11
So the logical thing would be to embrace the DACA kids and ease immigration plus give more help to families willing to raise kids as opposed to what we are doing now...
8
Why is this a problem, no more drones to feed the machines of the 1%?
12
Each species starts, expands, gets to its peak and vanishes. Where are we now?
10
I made a choice in my mid-30s to never have children. This story reminded me of what my urologist said when we scheduled my vasectomy:
"You're going to have a lot of free time on your hands!"
Yep, that was the plan.
127
Every time we're around some screaming child misbehaving in public, I tell my wife that surgery was worth every penny.
20
The human quest is the search for increasing freedom from oppression. The oppression of one's genes...which want you to reproduce regardless of how miserable, poor, exhausted, and sick it makes you, is something we've been able to overcome only recently with technology.
The interests of a person and the interests of their genes, which just want to replicate themselves and move on to the next host body ad inifitum, are not at all the same, and are often directly opposed. Especially for women, who have always paid a much higher cost. People are finally waking up to this, and have the choice to throw off the shackles. For most of history people, especially women, had no choice but to obey the reproductive imperative. No more.
P.S. Let's just be blunt. Dogs and cats are more appealing than people. This is obvious when you look around at people's free choices. In the US, for every one human child that is adopted, 30 pets are adopted. Let's just accept the truth.
75
More pets may be adopted bc they only live 10 years! A child will generally outlive his/her parent. Do the math!
2
Long term contraception (Nexplanon and IUDs) have enabled us to determine the lifestyle we want to have. I'm surprised that Americans are having as many children as they still are, considering how expensive raising them is ($ 250 K to age 18, and that is probably with no frills).
7
The morning after Trump was named president elect, I felt so grateful that I did not have children. Luckily my husband and I are on the same page. Many of my friends were in tears for days, worrying about the future for their children. For me, I could not comprehend that millions of people in our country would vote for him. And today the (R) approval ratings continue to confuse and upset me.
One friend went ahead and got pregnant with her third child as quickly as she could, saying that she wanted to bring another compassionate, liberal minded person into the world. It seemed so selfless of her to want to contribute in that way. After some thinking I came to the conclusion that she loves being a mother and would have had another child regardless of who was elected. And I probably don’t have enough desire to be a mother to have a first child, regardless of who was elected.
35
Low birthrate and reduced immigration? I don't want to live in Japan, where the sales of adult diapers exceeded the sales of infant diapers. As other readers have noted, Social Security needs more workers per beneficiary to be sustainable, even if the payroll tax cap is removed and the rates on employees and employers are increased.
12
Also, family friendly policies would help greatly. One of my friends who has three children just moved her American husband and three kids back to her native Germany. Their day care bill was double that of their mortgage here. During her last pregnancy she was discriminated against at her place of employment, a private university that is internationally acclaimed. Why would anyone in their right state of mind even think about having a family in this country?
4
Better to bring in more skilled, healthy young adult immigrants as they can work and pay taxes right away.
True, as some readers point out, world population is too high, so this is not a bad trend. However, if the replacement trend declines, then, how is social security going to be paid for? Senior citizens (and all will get to this point in the life cycle) will suffer the consequences with reduced or no pension funds. That is the problem.
7
Maybe senior citizens getting less is a small price to pay for saving the planet. The United States has dozens of Nobel Prize winning economists. Should be possible to develop an economically healthy nation that doesn’t rely on population growth. They need to develop a new model that combines prosperity with a shrinking population.
10
1. So transfer excess people from other parts of the world. While we all hate the idea of illegal immigration, the fact is that the hardest-working and most risk-taking of the rest of the world who desire to come here (unlike many Europeans who are perfectly happy where they are) are self-selecting the US. So the hard part is being done for us. 2. Technology gains = efficiency gains = fewer people needed for economic benefit. C'mon, you're in Berkeley. You should know this!
1970’s: American women could not be co-signers with husbands on home loans. Even if they were both in public education careers.
Women were not allowed to keep their jobs if they got pregnant.
Women were ...chastised...if they got pregnant over the age of 35.
There was no childcare.
17
Great, now we have the right to cosign on the mortgage and keep our job while pregnant. Never mind that it is iffy once you have the child and daycare is not affordable for a lot of people.. Are we supposed to be impressed with the "progress"?
9
I would love a third child but it would be financially irresponsible. Between the outrageous taxes in NY, cost of childcare, cost of living, etc. we can barely make ends meet. And my husband and I make good salaries. Unpaid maternity leaves hurt us financially. It’s sad that this dictates what our family looks like.
24
In New Jersey, property taxes average $10,000 per year. That’s enough to raise a child. In effect, the state takes one child from each family. Much of it goes to support generous pensions for state workers.
7
I am thrilled with the decision NOT to have kids. My life is full of volunteering, donating to good causes, reading, traveling, no stress, no exhaustion, plenty of sleep, good relationships, abundant mental stimulation, and knowing I am contributing to a better world.
89
Relying on a rising population to solve problems is a counterproductive Ponzi scheme. Mother Earth needs a smaller population, not a larger population. When women know their children will live to adulthood, and when they can control their fertility, they have fewer children. It is also a wise decision not to have children you can't afford.
So why are we bemoaning wise choices?
73
Read for content. The article describes statistics, it doesn't present any strong viewpoint on the situation, one way or another.
3
"Relying on a rising population to solve problems is a counterproductive Ponzi scheme..."
Thanks for a great way of expressing this truth.
10
Why would anyone want to bring children into modern day USA? My sister lives in Tennessee and is looking to get European passports for her two young kids (which she can do through our mother) because she no longer wants to raise them there. I can't honestly blame her.
58
As another American expat in Australia, I thank my lucky stars that I am raising them here rather than in the US. Life in Aus is not perfect, but it is a lot easier than in the US, even for people at the top of the socioeconomic totem pole, as we are lucky enough to be.
5
Many European countries have offered substantial economic support to their citizens who have children. I have no idea whether that works to raise the birth rate significantly. Here in the USA I suspect that such a program would create a lot of problems. I can hear the GOP House Members now - "pure" white children get XX + a dividend if their parents are Southern Baptist, mixed race kids get XX- 50% and minority children get 00-00. And based on recent results, the Supreme Ct. will be right there to back up the House GOP.
No thanks.
10
I remember reading Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb in the early 1970's. While some of his predictions did not work out like he thought, the impact on overpopulation is becoming obvious with economic and environmental stress of having too many people. Perhaps war and high murder rates are also a result of an overpopulated region. A reduction in the population will be a good thing for the future of the planet.
29
Subsides and tax credits to offset the cost of child care for the productive class would help a lot. Working parents consistently postpone or forgo having children for financial reasons, as the author describes. Conveniently overlooked by the author is the race and class differential. Women of color, the non-working poor of all races, and immigrants/illegal immigrants have much higher birth rates. It is astonishing that they and their children should be the beneficiaries of tax payer wealth transfer payments at the expense of productive Americans.
9
What is the word for someone who flat out says that women of color and immigrants are not productive Americans?
That assertion is just astonishing.
14
What, have children? You're joking, right? Young parents in the US must make so much money just to keep their heads barely above (or below) water that their freedom mostly disappears for decades. Atop school loans they may themselves be servicing, it behooves them to save gargantuan amounts for their children's education too (even though that education won't necessarily get their kids very far anymore). The expenses -- more housing, more cars, more insurance, more medical care -- go on and on and on and most of them degrade the environment. Have a child? Away go your dreams, and into the lap of the Man you fall, to make as much money as you can. Want good healthcare for that baby? Better work at one of the Man's big companies, where you probably wouldn't otherwise choose to be. Want to live near a public school worth attending? Get ready to really fork it out for a spot in one of the "good" (white) communities and pay a premium for proximity to a "good" (white) school, even if the house isn't really big enough for you (so you want more). And, gone, of course, is most people's health as they become inactive and probably obese (because they have no control over their time). Not having kids sends a message to the powers that be about how poorly structured this society is for parents. One might hope that would create pressure for reform, but I doubt change will occur. There is far too much money to be made exploiting young parents for their decisions to have children.
74
‘He said he heard about a couple living in the USA,
He said they traded in their baby for a new Chevrolet.’
Elvis Costello, ‘[Everything Means] Less Than Zero.’
Americans would rather have more ‘stuff’ than children.
2
What's wrong with that? The world is OVERPOPULATED with humans.
31
No, people who are responsible do not birth children they cannot support when they cannot count on the larger society creating a supportive culture in which children are valued. This country values neither children nor parents.
4
No, August, the United States is scarcely overpopulated. Drive from coast to coast sometime and take a look. And in terms of the strain on natural resources, which would you rather have, more flat panel tvs, SUVs, cell phones, video games, in-home ‘fitness centers, 5,000 square foot suburban faux chateaux... or families?
That’s the point.
If the educated middle class forgoes children then we will become a society of the uneducated poor. That doesn't sound very promising.
20
caveman007 said, "...If the educated middle class forgoes children then we will become a society of the uneducated poor...."
When women's opportunities go up, fertility tends down. The solution is to increase *all* women's opportunities, not to get into a make-more-babies contest in hope of keeping "those people" outnumbered.
5
Agreeing with Joe. But also would like to suggest that making sure quality education, from pre-school to higher education and/or decent job training will lessen those "uneducated poor" numbers in the future. But that is just common sense.
3
This is indeed the “me” generation. Restated, it might more appropriately be called the “selfish” generation. I find it difficult to believe that any woman with a God given ability to birth another human being would find it undesirable and unnecessary to do so when a choice clearly exists. It says very bad things about today’s society.
2
Just curious - what were the hospital bills like when you brought your babies home from the hospital.
Insured families pay about $2700 for an uncomplicated delivery of one baby and very brief stay; a c-section costs about $4600 if there are no problems and one baby. That's after insurance. Add one small complication, and millenials may be looking at a lot more. Preemies using a NICU for 13 days (the average) cost about 40,000, with varying amounts paid by insurance companies. However, in many cases, the costs of care can easily exceed 10,000 with insurance for a sick or at-risk baby. And that's if everything is in network.
Any couple considering having a baby has a lot to consider to see if the finances could take that kind of hit, which is far more than the amounts paid for hospital-based deliveries with much longer times in the hospital allowed during your reproductive years.
If the couple declared bankruptcy and left others to pick up the bill, you would call them irresponsible.
There are no easy choices for anyone who is earning an income and using commercial insurance and would like to consider parenthood today.
10
Give me a break. Not all women have the desire to give birth or feel it is selfish not to have children. We can contribute to society in other ways and not overpopulate the planet at the same time. I’m sure many women over time would NOT have had children if that option existed in earlier generations. At least now we have the choice about what to do with our bodies and lives, and it’s not always based on “me.” The choice ‘clearly exists’ now NOT to have children, and it’s about time that women can choose. If women want to have children, that is their choice, but not everyone has that desire or need to procreate - for a variety of reasons.
2
It's selfish to not want to bring up a child in an unstable environment? People are prolonging having children until they're financially ready and have their lives in order. If they don't feel stable, they forgo having kids. Isn't it more responsible to make a well thought out decision than to just have as many kids as possible and figure the rest out later?
2
About 1 in 7 couples are infertile. How did the NYT count - or account - for couples who tried to have children but couldn't conceive or carry a pregnancy to term?
6
I have yet to meet a couple, or a couple who knows a couple, who were not able to have a child. The 1 in 7 statistic is total nonsense.
2
And I know of at least 2 couples that needed procedural help to conceive and birth their children - your anecdotal evidence against mine
Problem is those who should be having children aren't. And those who are having the most amount should not be.
65
You hit the nail on the head with this one, Jan!
8
I'm part of a group of ten women who meet regularly. Most have Ph.Ds. There are only three children amongst us. I am in my 60s and I have observed that the more educated a woman is, the fewer children she has.
31
Why should one group of people have children and another group not? The choice is and should be up to the individual concerned.
8
Humans, THE most invasive and destructive species on this planet needs to stop indiscriminately breeding. I’m glad some peop actually use their brain and voluntarily stop breeding. There might be hope after all.
36
Think the poor and indigent think this way?
6
If you want to make sure that everything you do is 10 times more difficult than it has to be, throw in a couple kids. Anyone that insists you should have kids just wants you to be as miserable as they are.
133
My spouse and I enjoy our children and pets.
4
You're probably right, but not everybody has the goal of making their life as easy as possible at the expense of meaningful experiences.
1
Becoming a parent, teaches you an otherwise unknowable truth. Life in this lonely place, this small blue dot, infinity ahead, is better shared. Love, misery, pain, light filled joy is a reality you need a tribe to navigate. ‘FRIENDS’ are not the same as family. And the emotionally vulnerable life you inhabit with children, allows your selfish-self, the opportunity to explore the parameters of your LOVE.
16
You are right. I can rely on my FRIENDS and I chose them. Neither is true of family. And by the way, none of the emotional growth you mention is impossible in a life without biological children.
45
Yes. When I was struck down by a heart attack, languishing in a hospital bed with my body wasting away, my so-called friends disappeared. Only my daughter and son were there, every night, every day, without complaint. They are the moon and the stars to me. All the trouble of raising them has been repaid a million fold.
13
Not impossible Tom. But different. And personal emotional growth you are pushed to explore. Most people, given the choice, choose the path of least resistance. Children, are not ‘least resistant’.
2
Where are we going to get the future soldiers to fight our oil wars?
25
What population group can have children for free? No insurance cost, no deductible, no co-pay?
Medicaid enrollees. Our policies make it free for those most likely to be irresponsible, least likely to be able to support a child, least likely to aid in its education, most likely to perpetuate dependency. And -- is this a wonderful country or what? -- this includes illegal "immigrant" parents.
All others must pay and pay a lot, even with good insurance.
We have a set of policies that should be considered for a national Darwin Award.
31
Trump can fix this problem. He'll just take away their birth control. omg.
26
I am a 66 year old retired professional woman and my decision NOT to have any children was an excellent one that I never regretted. Marrying relatively early, and having enough income, I certainly could have had as many as I wished, but I loved my life, which included a career I loved, frequent travel, and having the time to pursue all of my many hobbies and interests. I also understood as I grew older, the huge financial and personal sacrifices I would have to make if I wanted to breed and decided it just was not worth it.
Today, my friends with adult children are worse off in nearly every way; financially and emotionally. Some have children in their 30s and 40s still living with them, some are wearing themselves out raising their grandchildren. They will never be freed from the responsibilities of parenthood, even in their "golden years." Being a parent is being a parent for life and often it does not go well even if you do everything right. There are already enough people on the planet and many ways to mentor and love children other than having your own.
132
Bravo!
8
I am glad that the decision not to have children has worked out well for this commenter. She accurately observes the trials and sacrifices of being a parent, and appears to feel that she has "dodged a bullet" in her decision. At age 64, looking back on my choice to welcome four children, I would not trade in my decision, even with its joys and anguish, for anything. Being a mother, probably the most consequential unpaid full-time job there is, has made me stronger than before and more concerned than I might have been about today's children and their world. It certainly is not lucrative--in spite of having an advanced degree and decades spent looking after children, I recognize that the society does not value motherhood and does not pay mothers what they are worth.
Yet the world can be a better place only if mothers and non-mothers would join together to make it so. We need all women to work together and not keep comparing their decisions to have or not to have children. My generation is particularly focused on this divide, but it's old news--we can do better.
Instead, women, whether mothers or not, need to combine their considerable talents and help to raise children being born today. We need to be the "village" they will need to grow up in. We need to advocate for better heath, education, and environment on their behalf. We need to love them as little humans regardless of whether we birthed them. They belong to us all. Truce.
16
Brava. But nowhere do you mention men. Men have just as much at stake as women do, as pertains to the future of society. Men need to be full partners in the "village" that children grow up in.
2
My wife and I never wanted children and, thankfully, never had them. It was a conscious, serious decision. Even so, we like kids. Over the years I have been involved in a lot of youth programs and have helped mentor many young adults.
A life without our own children has allowed us to do many things that parents with kids can't (or won't) do. It has allowed us far more freedom in our jobs and where we've lived. We have had a far easier time financially. We have had a good life together without kids.
Indeed, having children isn't for everyone, but remember too, there are many ways to live a productive and joyous life.
55
"Kids" with fur and four legs are more than enough to give me joy.
3
Why are the people aged 20-45 called "young adults" in this article? You're lumping together people who are delaying children (for many reasons) vs. those who have chosen not to. I say this as a 40 year old: I'm not a "young adult" any more, and these questions/answers are quite different for me now than they would have been at 25 or 30.
22
Prima facie evidence America is still in the depths of the "Greater Depression" despite pundits repeatedly telling we, the people, that there is no such things as a recession.
The correlation is between economic hard times and fertility rate is one-for-one .
26
Agreed. The economy is going well if you are invested in Wall Street, but most Americans are not. Stagnant wages, the high cost of education, and the cost and uncertainty of health insurance all play a role in younger Americans decisions about their future, which looks pretty grim.
35
I get what people are writing, but having children is the best and most rewarding thing I’ve done in my life. Yes, it was hard, financially and emotionally. I didn’t have the strongest marriage and now I am divorced. Being a member of a family oriented church helped enormously. I had a strong support system. But I didn’t work until I was 44 and was fine with that. Different generation, different expectations for what constitutes a fulfilling life. Still, I would not trade any of my children for a bigger house, more secure retirement, or trips to Europe or Kenya or Australia. Although I started late and am not rewarded financially or with high status, I have had a career as a teacher that has been enormously satisfying. I don’t need children to take care of me or financially support me in old age. I just love them and enjoy them. I hope in this brave new world we are in that people take experiences like mine into account.
17
Who really has time for kids with full time employment requiring 40+ hours of energy and absence from the home? Until work culture changes and we seriously rethink the notion of working "full time" at 40 hours a week--hellish for anyone--then we can't blame people for not wanting to have kids.
Besides giving people more time to raise children, working less would also give people more time to develop themselves as human beings, be creative, healthy, participate in government, and in good shape. One big piece of this puzzle--apart from the obvious problem of lack of subsidized child care and huge debt for many--is work culture and our obsession with work. Even if you do decide to have kids, and have child care paid for, you will still be absent from the child's life for much of it with your 40+ hour job...
47
The end of the article bugs me - we don't need to employ strategies to reverse the trend. It's a good trend, and long overdue.
76
I’d like to see separate statistics for each socioeconomic class. I have a conjecture that there is an inverse relationship between economic standing and rate of reproduction.
26
Poorer people always have more children than wealthier people. Children are the only form of investment in the future that poor people can make. The more children one has the more likely that at least one of them will be able to care for you in your old age. Simple speculative economic calculation.
6
Poor people cannot afford effective birth control or are not sufficiently educated about their bodies to make plans ahead of sperm-meets-egg.
Donate to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide low cost access to information and resources!
3
Both my grandpa and my dad said that without pressure from their stay-at-home wives, they wouldn't have had kids and this was many years ago.
Males often don't want the responsibility of a child and so if a kid is going to be around then it was often the woman agreeing to be the primary (practically sole) caregiver which meant foregoing opportunities outside the home.
Now that women can find fulfillment outside the home, the pressure to have a baby is diverted and both men and women are OK by that it seems. Fewer babies is the natural result.
27
In my eastern European country more men want kids (and they want them earlier and in bigger numbers) It's usually woman who veto subsequent children after the experience of the first kid
12
I'm American but have lived in Australia for nine years and gave birth to my son here three years ago. Most women I know here have 2-3 kids and go back to work after having each child. Australia's policies around maternity leave and child care leave a lot to be desired compared to many European countries (and Canada) but at least their ARE policies in place. Most of my American female friends have left the workforce after having their 2nd child as the lack of paid (or even unpaid) maternity leave and high childcare costs prove prohibitively expensive. Another major issue is the lack of flexibility in many American workplaces towards flexible or part time work for women. Australia has a very high rate of women in part time work, allowing them a better work life balance. Typically Australian women will access 6 months-1 year of leave (only the first 18 weeks being paid), then return to work part time during their children's formative years. Childcare is subsidised. I currently work three days per week and pay around USD 30 dollars a day for high quality childcare for my son, after my rebate from the government. This includes university educated room leaders and three healthy meals per day. (The full fee per day is USD 100 and if you are on a high income you will pay all of that). One of the main reasons I don't return to the US is that I plan to have another child and don't want to lose my benefits!
34
Australia and the US have identical birth rates though. Part time might not be good enough of a vision
4
There is never a perfect time to have a baby because there is never a perfect time to sacrifice so much to raise a child.
In the final analysis, the sacrifice makes the mom or the dad a better person.
That doesn't mean the mom or the dad is any better than a person who decides not to have a child. It just means that we make different choices, but none of us is immune from struggle that comes with being alive.
8
I disagree that having children makes one a better person.
38
I’m adopted as is my brother. We have three sisters who are our parents’ biological children. Neither my brother nor I have kids (my husband has a daughter from a previous marriage).
My step daughter has three sons - she got pregnant young after dropping out of college, and had two more kids in rapid succession. I see how stressed she is. She also verbalized that she has lots of regrets and it makes me sad for her. Children are wonderful but they are a ton of work and I wish she had had the chance to be an independent, untethered adult before she had kids.
32
This is very good news, we are already over populated. If you can't afford a child or won't properly raise one you should not have any. Now if only more people would do so that would be even better.
53
I had three kids. I wanted seven. If affordable childcare were available I would have had more kids. I wanted to be a female father, and that's that's what I got. I just wish I could have had more kids!
3
'Because the fertility rate subtly shapes many major issues of the day — including immigration, education, housing, the labor supply, the social safety net and support for working families — there’s a lot of concern about why today’s young adults aren’t having as many children.'
A lot of concern from whom? Not from those who understand that global population growth is a primary driver of global climate change.
There are 7.4 billion of us. By the mid century, we will be almost ten billion. That's a global increase of about a third.
Most of that increase will be in the countries least able to support population growth, where tribal conflicts over access to scant resources including water and land already drive bloody wars, mass killings and mass emigration into the west.
Those business owners in the media and elsewhere who depend upon cheap labour and millions of consumers competing for their goods and services promote population growth. But robots mean that in a hundred years there will be no jobs for anyone – yes, including for journalists.
30
"Not enough family leave" (39%) and "No paid family leave" (38%) is, IMHO, the same, and total (77%) far exceeds anything else - what other explanation is required?
23
Those stats are not additive, obviously.
2
The article doesn't make it clear but survey respondents probably could check off more than one answer. That means you can't just add up the percentages as the same people who picked "not enough" might be the same ones who picked "No".
3
Not sure which survey reason this falls under, but I don’t want “mother” as an identity. As far as I’ve seen it, that identity is unavoidable once a woman has a child. In many of my girlfriends who have children, I see deep joy and also deep conflict.
Sure, I coo at babies and think they are generally adorable. I’m also told by well-meaning friends and acquaintances that I’d be a great parent, but being good at something shouldn’t mean that we have to do it.
As a woman in my late thirties, I’ve known for at least the past decade that I find more meaning in other aspects of my identity. Fortunately, I have pursued a career that allows me to nurture and mentor young people, making up some of my most meaningful relationships. I love being part of their villages.
My immigrant mother once flatly told me, “Don’t have children; they ruin your life.” Her words didn’t cut me because I knew they weren’t said in a way directed at me, but they sure stayed with me. In her direct, perhaps tone-deaf way, my mom was telling me to put myself first and I consider it one of her greatest lessons to me, followed closely by my dad telling me shortly after I married, “Don’t ever have kids because you think it’s something your mom and I expect. We don’t. We want you to live your own life.”
I consider it revolutionary when women decide for themselves whether or not parenthood is right for them. What freedom!
217
Same here. No pressure from the parents to have kids. If I had had them, I think they would have been happy but I don't think they are unhappy without grandkids.
12
My Mom said the same thing to me! I'm 41 now, no kids, no regrets!
11
Quote:My immigrant mother once flatly told me, “Don’t have children; they ruin your life.”
They seem to ruin you as a PERSON too - I mean, who talks like that? Oh, I get it - she's a "MOT-HER" so she can just say and act however she wants, and it's all supposed to be okay - because SHE'S a "MOM-MY!" .... No, it's not okay. It's not okay.
I’m shocked. It turns out that if you:
A. Significantly reduce affordability of education.
B. Neglect affordable housing in favor of zoning laws that decrease supply in order to drive up prices
C. Allow healthcare costs to grow unfettered
D. Systematically reduce worker rights at the same time as technology is displacing workers
E. Reduce benefits to every group except the elderly so that you can give tax cuts to the rich
then the young middle class will suffer a bit! Who could have seen this coming?
195
My parents had 2 kids. My brother and I each have none. We are 44 and 48.
17
Everything in here makes sense, except that the Mike Pences of the world insist that a woman should "stay home and take care of her children." Somehow the stranglehold that evangelicals have on public policy has to be broken.
80
The funny thing is that it is the policies of the Mike Pence's of the world that are driving down fertility rates. No women wants to have kids in a culture where there is no universal health care, costly child care options, limited to no family leave, and limited to no PAID family leave, plus a lack of strong protections around breastfeeding and pregnancy in general. Evangelical Republicans oppose Every. Single. One. of these policies that would encourage families to have more children.
32
I’m surprised my number one reason isn’t there: I don’t want kids. Makes me wonder how the poll questions were asked .....
42
Finally a generation that understands freedom.
37
they're having fewer babies because the future looks horrendous and no one cared enough to prevent it from happening. What are we leaving our kids with?
44
Yes, it's notable that one third of people with kids/wanting kids said climate change was one reason they didn't have as many as they wanted, and 10% of people who didn't want kids said climate change was a factor in their choice. I don't blame them; I too believe conditions are going to get increasingly difficult between now and the end of the century.
15
This pattern is pretty universal in many countries where women have more freedom to work, mainly developed countries.
It's the poor countries, as seen from the illegal immigrants, where women have less rights, more traditional gender roles, and where the women stay at home more, that have higher fertility.
It's not bad that the humanity is slowing down in growth, but the people who should be reproducing are not, and the people who are reproducing, shouldn't.
Reason is if you watch Idiocracy (clever, funny film) you'd think that would never happen, Carl's Jr would never sponsor the Secretary of State like in the movie. But guess what? Trump's nominee for Secretary of Labor was Carl Jr's former CEO!! That's just too much, America is really dumbing down with the wrong people having babies and partly why there's so much welfare spending.
16
It's not about freedom to work, it's about education. Study after study after study has shown that, across all cultures, religions, nationalities, and races, there is one thing that universally drives down reproduction rate: educating women. The higher the educational attainment of women in a population, the lower that population's fertility rate.
11
When the least educated are breeding like rabbits and the most educated aren't having any babies, yes it does lower the overall intelligence of our society, you are correct. This dumbing down will continue generationally.
12
people in underdeveloped countries have more kids because kids there work. In industrialized counties they don't work for 25 years (and later they don't support the parents anyway). Kids used to be a n economic gain
6
I miss a hint of a critical thought in this piece: First, there are enough people on this planet. Second: If the unnamed people having these “concerns” could get over the expectation that these births should preferrably be of the non-latino white kind, there would be much less of a “problem”. We could welcome the migrants instead of punishing and torturing them. And lastly, capitalism is based on growth, but not everything can or should grow.
21
Capitalism is not based on population growth in this country any more. And of course many things should shrink. And we don't need any migrants, especially those of low capability.
4
Actually, we do need "those of low capability.' As farmers in California. Without migrants, your vegetable and fruit sections at the store would be empty. You should be thanking migrants for doing this work at such a low wage, work that white guys won't do.
6
Well, at least they're reading the writing on the wall.
13
For me, not reproducing is an act of defiance against god, nature, evolution, the cosmos, whatever you call it. Why should I put a being into the world that will die?
13
Right on!
4
Uh, because living is beautiful.
6
The reality is being a parent is hard. One has to sacrifice freedom for an infant. It is also an overpopulated world and, in the end, the child becomes an adult and dies, like everyone else. I think I will stick to dogs.
18
Who also die and mostly while you continue to live. No dogs for me anymore, I can't properly raise them.
2
The reality is being a parent is hard. One has to sacrifice freedom for an infant. It is also an overpopulated world and, in the end, the child become an adult and dies, like everyone else. I think I will stick to dogs.
3
I have freedom, even with kids, and I can take them more places than I can take dogs.
3
I am 31 and I opted for a beagle and a small apartment instead of children. Having kids is out of the question. Healthcare is too expensive and unreliable and I can barely pay my prescription costs now. I don’t have student debt. To be honest, I don’t know how people with student debt and normal jobs can afford to have children given that childcare costs rival the cost of college tuition in some places. The only way I imagine people do it is: family willing to help out, marrying someone making six-figures, accumulate debt, or living in fear and being filled with anxiety about money all the time.
If society believes in family and wants to encourage people to have children, we should support: universal pre-k, universal higher education, and universal trade school for all, Medicare for All, paid family leave, and a living wage—because at the moment it is unthinkable that people have the money to have children even if they live modestly and have no student debt.
51
Here we have higher education for free for those competent, that includes trade schools. Even for elder people can go back to school.
2
Tennessee offers free COMMUNITY college education for everyone --and has only been doing so for less than a year. That's hardly the same as free four-year college or free graduate school.
2
Exactly. All they've done is stretched out K-12. That is understandable due to the need to teach the language to proficiency.
Why would anyone bring a child into this world. The data clearly shows that we are in for an environmental catastrophe which will occur in these children's lifetimes.
There is no "get out of jail free" on this one either. Science tells us we have gone too far in destroying our planet. There is no political will in the US to address this and since we are the single largest generator on greenhouse gasses, the patterns will continue and worsen.
Both of my children have made the decision not to have children which I fully support.
64
7.5 billion and counting...
People should not be having children if they cannot afford to raise them.
The state was never supposed to be your daddy/ mommy.
20
Apparently you missed the concept that the State declines when the population declines. A country with no children has no future.
4
You should have just stopped at "7.5 billion and counting..." And it's 7.6, BTW.
The state was never "never supposed to be your daddy/ mommy" sure, if you wanna phrase it that way, but read a little Dickens and then look at the happiest countries on the face of the planet that value a cohesive, sharing culture as the best possible goal of humanity. Of course those countries are also very racially homogeneous, so they do think of all their country-folk as neighbors. Here we have lots of problems doing that. We hate each other because they are different from us. Sadly that does not validate our push to destroy the social state that we did manage to put in place. It's a hard lesson for us. We might never learn it.
11
Please, please, please, please... If you feel you must have a child, become a FOSTER parent instead of further burdening this amazing, singular, fragile planet Earth with even more human beings!
23
Having children is over rated
32
I remember once reading about the results of a question either Dear Abby or her sister (can't remember name) put to her readers that is, if you had it to do over again, would you have kids again. A very large number, perhaps the majority, said "no."
14
Hahahahaha It’s Jess!!!! Great pic though.
1
It's really too bad that having children, which is arguably a biological imperative not to mention a social and cultural expectation for many, is now considered a luxury that only the rich can afford (or deserve).
14
Today having children in many ways is not any of those things. I don't expect my children to have any children, and biology might include having relations not creating children.
6
Biological imperative? How so? Birth control has taken care of the "imperative" part, as far as I can tell.
9
"biological imperative" hasn't been true for millennia. There has been practically zero stress on homo sapiens in terms of the perpetuation of the species. "biological imperative" could apply to large cats in Asia, large mammals in Africa, bees everywhere, etc., etc., etc. But if there is one species that it absolutely does NOT apply to, it's us.
11
This article, along with many others I've read recently, cite a growing, vibrant economy. I'm not sure who exactly is enjoying that economy. Certainly not most people I know, who are still facing anemic wages, unattainable housing, and increasing cost of living. The pace of technological change is leaving entire systems we're accustomed to on incredibly shaky ground. The level of uncertainty in the economy, instability on the national and international stage, plus the increasing impacts of climate change all have a subconscious, if not consciously worrisome effect. I feel on edge every day, and worry for the world my children face. I have the same conflicted feeling many others have expressed here - my children are my greatest source of joy, but I don't know if I would choose to have them if I was starting right now.
28
Um, excuse me, but America is now great again, everyone is doing really, really well. Everything has been fixed. So stop complaining.
Uncertainty, economic and political, is the bottom line here. No one can be sure that just b/c they have a job, they WILL continue to have a job in the future.
No one can be sure that they will be paid fairly, get raises fairly, or even have health care coverage.
And saving for retirement? Hmmm...
For younger people who are paying off student loans and/or a mortgage, having children is the most expensive item on the list, and I can't fault anyone who says "I don't want to be caught out when the economy tanks again."
41
Weren't young couples also financially insecure during the Depression and then insecure about the future during WWII?
2
@me: Yes, people were financially insecure during the Depression, but a lot of them had children who were born BEFORE the Depression; those children had to be cared for. AND they didn't have access to birth control the way we do now. My mother was 10 when the Depression hit, and the only reason her family had enough food to eat was b/c some of her uncles ran a butcher shop.
As to WWII, people were NOT insecure about earning money, b/c supplying materiel for war is good for the economy - there were plenty of jobs & plenty of workers were needed. Many war factories were running 24 hours a day, employing 3 shifts of workers. BUT a lot of potential fathers were away serving in the military, so birth rates would have been lower during the war.
Then after the war, we got the Baby Boom.
And now we have the Baby Bust.
1
That's why the "baby boom" was a post-WWII phenomenon!
I have one child and wanted another one, but didn't have a second child for one reason and one reason only: we simply couldn't afford it. End of story.
44
Our future will be shaped by the children we have, (or do not have). Perhaps the most important reason to have children is to serve a purpose greater than one's self and participate in generational rebirth, without which, extinction looms. As many here have lamented, having children requires personal sacrifice so great they cannot bear to face it. They also offer a range of marginally related excuses. In life, each of us decides to be an active participant or simply, an observer.
3
Are you saying that choosing to remain childless makes you an observer of life? On the contrary, I find that having kids to raise allows me to opt out of contributing meaningfully to the world, as I dedicate most of my time to the basics - - keeping a very small group of people sheltered, fed, healthy, and educated.
20
Extinction? So what? Humans are the most invasive and destructive species on this planet.
3
Being an "active participant" in life does not depend upon having children.
33
The world’s population continues to increase at an unsustainable rate. This causes massive environment toll in terms of increased habitat destruction and pollution. The future of this planet depends on adults having fewer or no adults. Yes - having no adults is a viable option and we need to stop asking people to provide a reason. Life in modern society without children can be very fulfilling for singles and couples alike.
43
Bang on. The most destructive and invasive species on this planet needs to stop reproducing : HUMANS
12
What’s the point of having children if someone else is going to raise them? Some women would like to actually BE moms and see more of their kids than a harried hour in the morning or evening. But in many causes that’s not an option because of all the financial realities cited here. Have we asked ourselves as a society, do we really want to outsource parenthood?
32
why do men have kids then? You're getting in wrong, most people want a work-life balance
16
That train already left the station decades ago.
4
Men don't have a problem letting someone else (their wife) raise their kids.
14
Prior generations were used to living with risk, often risks imposed on them. Economic depression, wars, cold wars, threat of nuclear annihilation, etc. So, somehow they coped with them, and had families. I am an early baby boomer, growing up in the fifties and early sixties. And we had economic opportunity. It seemed almost everyone started their first family by their early 20s. Women got married because, by and large, their available jobs were mostly the kind of positions where they were only expected to be there until the family came into their lives.
Not so true today. As economic opportunities have opened, careers have in many cases displaced Leave it to Beaver family formation. Plus, there has been great economic uncertainty at least since the financial collapse of 2008-09. Our standard of living has, in my opinion, fallen, but people still want their toys. Which means they need incomes to pay for them. Children have become optional, and for many, are too economically expensive and altering of lifestyles to which many have become accustomed.
Plus, with the present effective state of birth control, accidental children are now easily avoidable.
13
Everyone who is saying "good, women shouldn't be expected to have children" is missing the point.
Women now have less opportunities to CHOOSE if they want to have children or not. Crushing economic debt, inordinately expensive childcare costs, and an "every man for themselves" mentality has left women and families very little room to breath.
If a women doesn't want to have children, great! Power to her, and it will likely help the overpopulation that's crushing our planet. However these women should still have the OPTION to have children if they wish - many don't feel they have the option.
96
woman are not parthenogenous. Birth rates will never raise until the world internalizes that
People are not having kids because for the second generation in a row now, the majority of Western countries have made political and economic decisions to make family life an afterthought.
Some folks complain about overpopulation etc but really, stop and think about building a society that has little room for people to have personal lives. Really, what's the point of it all if there's so little room for that?
33
Why would any educated woman choose to have a child in America?
Only if the woman is coming from a developing world country might the choice look remotely fiscally feasible. If you are coming from Europe or Canada you will have paid maternity leave, state supported child care and functionally funded public schools. If you have recently graduated you do not have outlandish debt and to seal the deal if you have a health issue yourself or your child has one you will not go into bankruptcy paying for it.
Anyone who thinks this situation is not creating a brain drain out of America is clueless- and denying the obvious- able smart women vote with their feet.
Having a child is an act of optimism- an act that says the world will be a good enough place for your child to live in.
Incoming immigrants often bring family members to change the financial formula for child care, sometimes if they have health problems they go home because even Mexico and many central american countries have state supported health care which is easier to pay for with American earned dollars.
36
Yet, birth rates are quite low in Europe as well, including Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy, and Portugal. So, it must be more than the availability of "social support."
12
Leave the women alone who are deciding not to have kids and stop trying to figure out how to "solve" their lack of interest. This is good news, not bad news. The world has way too many people. A natural population decline, of humans, will be good for the rest of the animal and plant life on this planet. Let's go back to say, four billion people rather than heading for the 10 billion we will soon reach.
131
True...but this doesn’t solve the global population problem. It’s only about the US which is falling in line with other developed countries like Japan and EU nations. The real global growth and stress on resources is in Africa.
2
The decrease is needed in the areas most affected by famine and war. The US has neither nor does Canada.
2
Sorry, but the US is one of the worst countries in the world for contributing to global warming via its carbon footprint. If our population continues to grow it will get even worse. So it’s not only countries facing war or famine whose populations need to decrease to save our planet and its resources.
1
The GOP War on Women explains it all.. And, if you don't think there's one - here's a sobering fact... Illinois just passed the ERA, 38 years after I worked for its passage in Illinois in the '80's.. And, how many other states have yet to pass? Without the ERA, America's women continue to be 2nd class citizens!
16
I think the Boomers may have started this trend--we were the first generation to grow up with birth control pills. My husband and I never had kids because we never wanted them. My brother and my brother-in-law never had kids. None of our friends our age (mid 60s) had kids. When you give people a choice (including good jobs available for women) some people simply don't want kids. It's not a tragedy.
48
Financial insecurity is a major factor for men's choices too.
20
33% cite concern about climate change as reason not to have children?
3
I have no problem believing that. Many people would hesitate to consign their descendants to inhabiting a Venusian hellscape.
19
Well, yes! Why bring kids into a declining world?
12
Hmmm...conspicuously absent among the "reasons" cited is the reason I would give. I don't feel it's my right to force someone into existence without their consent. To create sentience is to create the capacity to suffer, and that is not an action that should be taken frivolously. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
13
Oh please - there is no way to get the consent of someone who doesn't yet exist. To create sentience is to create the capacity for joy and a fulfilling life. It's a toss of the dice, and most people if asked would choose to have lived, rather than to never to have been born.
2
Why do you keep referring to this as "fertility rates"? It's about childbirth, not whether or not the couple is fertile.
12
Because that's the technical term for the number of births per 1000 women in their childbearing years (age 15-44).
The ability of any individual woman to become pregnant is not a factor in the overall rate.
4
Some of these reasons citing financial costs harken back to the depression days of not having children if one could not care for them. They were not to be a burden on society welfare whenever possible.
We have learned much although many have forgotten.
Those in government, religious groups and pro birth ideologies wish it both ways; increase babies but provide no social welfare for it.
Which is more intelligent in thought?
A recent NYT article discussed the longer lifespans of people. Interesting how the reproductive years do not also expand for women.
Nature determines species longevities in the end regardless of what manmade science creates.
4
I recently visited my daughter, 39, and 1 year old grandbaby in Atlanta. She's a businesswoman who got to a high corporate perch by holding off having kids. Then, when it was time, she and her hubby struggled mightily to get pregnant. While at a coffee shop in her (really nice) neighborhood, I couldn't help but notice that all the moms pushing strollers were mid-to-late thirties, and beyond. "Like me, one and done," my daughter said. Sad. For truly driven young women, our country makes it either-or: either have kids, or have a serious career. There's precious little support for doing both.
24
They could always adopt and give a home to a child who needs it
13
Good!! Maybe parts of the world such as Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia will follow suit. With an anticipated global population of 9 billion come 2050, this world is already becoming overpopulated. Please let's encourage the rest of the world to procreate less for the mutual benefit of all.
38
those countries are to even overpopulated and do not cause or pollution problems that USA and China and India do. Worry about your own backyard.
1
Financial concerns are certainly a factor. But to many people have been sucked into today’s marketing blitz. Trying to keep up with the Jones. The Jones as presented to them through advertising. New cars, latest and greatest iPhone, houses outside of their affordability, credit card debt, high price college education, the list goes on. The horror of living in a house you can afford, having one car that is 5-8 years old and changing your own oil, no ESPN in you cable package. People are no longer willing to live within their means. They want to much. Think of all the normal expenses now that didn’t use to exist 20-30 years ago. Heaven forbid we respect the spouse that chooses to stay home to raise the kids. And make the “sacrifices” necessary to have a stay at home spouse. My Mom stayed home and took care of us and kept an immaculate house. Made sure there were three good meals a day for us. Got us off to school. My Dad paid the bills, coached the baseball and soccer teams, and took us fishing. Their joy and pleasure in life involved their family. Not a BMW or iPhone X or traveling the world. That is how my wife and I are raising our kids. We respect each other’s contributions and make sure we help each other out. Our kids bring us the greatest joy I have ever known. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
13
the daughters of mothers who "sacrificed " don't want anything to do with it. So long term it's a bad plan
27
while the circumstances of your upbringing sound delightful, to be perfectly frank you’re living in a fantasy world if you think it’s an option for people in this day and age.
to have a single-income family that can support a stay at home parent and one child or more IS the luxury these days regardless of how many iphones they have.
for while women have doubled the work force (offsetting childcare to be a paid expense), wages have not kept up with inflation for the past 30 years. add to that the fact that unions have eroded (which advocate for such things as parental leave), republicans fighting tooth and nail against socialized healthcare, and tax cuts for the wealthiest which drain the nation’s funding for social services meaning the working class gets less for what they’re contributing.
ah to be a Boomer! handed everything “the greatest generation” had to give and pulling the ladder up behind them. and having to sacrifice nothing but a few of their ranks in vietnam, which took the lives of fewer americans than opioids in 2016 alone.
10
Speaking as a person of the generation this article is written about, half of what you said doesn’t even apply to my generation. You really think with the majority of us saddled with student loan debt can buy a new car and buy a house? Really? I’m one of the lucky few without student loans and that has a pretty good job with benefits, and I still can’t buy a house! I live in a very low cost of living state too, so I can’t even imagine how bad it must be in other places. I don’t even have cable or satellite tv because it’s overpriced. Your assessment is ridiculously out of touch, but that’s not exactly unusual of baby boomers that just love to criticize my generation. God forbid women actually WANT a career and to work rather than raise a family, or would rather spend their younger years traveling instead of getting pregnant. Believe it or not, some of us just would rather be anything else than parents.
25
I have read statistics that to raise and educate a child including a 4 year college costs about a million dollars. Who can raise a child on a minimum wage job or even 3 minimum wage jobs? No wonder births are falling off. Further this is a country that favors millionaires over working people and penalizes women in particular who take off work to give birth.
31
I adopted one child, who is the joy of my life, and I will never regret doing it. But adopt another? With the financial burdens I'm still carrying from the first? I can't imagine how I could do that.
11
You have read wrong and no one forces you to send a child to expensive college (overrated anyway) and if have no insurance to give a birth is not too expensive. Most people want to show off and get credit cards, buy things out of their league and become bankrupt thus make all excuses. first priority for all should be to get rid of credit cards and everything after that is easy.
The two policy changes that would make the biggest difference in women’s decision to have children would be paid family leave policies for both men and women (at least six months) and help with child care costs. Universal health coverage is a close third. Of course, the GOP adamantly opposes all three of these. They seem to be doubling down on the fantasy that women can be shamed, bullied and forced into returning home and providing childcare for “free”, as many women did fifty years ago. This isn’t going to happen - most people simply can’t afford it.
33
my catholic country tries the shaming thing for 20 years, Birth rates dropped to 1.2.
10
I have much respect for those who choose not to have children but am also sad for those who only have one but would like more. I don't find many comments here about the joys of family and that's what troubles me. We have become a very lonely species and it's shown that family and family support adds to our quality of life in general. True, some find that sort of communion with friends, but not as many as we think. Family members usually love us unconditionally and are there through all kinds of life struggles. The number one reason given for not having kids is that there is more time for oneself and for fun, travel , etc. I understand this, but find it selfish and immature. I come from a large family and enjoy my own smaller family; I can relate with the hardships of being a full time working parent and all of the sacrifices that entails. Hopefully, I will be a boomer with grandkids (adopted would be great too) and not just grandpets!
6
"I understand this, but find it selfish and immature." How is that more selfish than bringing another person into the world without their consent? it's not like we need to breed to save the species at this point
15
Why is it selfish? Who decided that we HAVE to procreate? You say you respect the decision, but then say it is selfish. So, you don't really respect the decision. It is completely mature to know yourself and understand how you feel about being responsible for the care and upbringing of another human being. We all know people who were raised by parent(s) who should not have had children. That's what is selfish and immature. No one asked to be born and especially from people who didn't have the guts and insight to say, this choice isn't right for me.
18
Most Families do Not "usually love each other unconditionally". They may try, some may succeed, but for many, it's uphill work.
2
We are showing our young adults a pretty grim future.
We are showing them that they start with school debt.
We are showing them that they will not be able to pay off that debt, buy a house and pay for child care and college.
And we are showing them that they have just a few years to saver for retirement because we tend to lay people off from higher paying jobs when we hit our 50s.
And we are showing them that they need every penny they can squirrel away for healthcare.
With all that, why would a young person today look to have several children. They may not be able to afford themselves.
70
My wife and I are 38 and have two kids; ages 7 and 4. To us, we don't want a third child because the cost of daycare is astronomical. For two years, we were paying $800 more than our mortgage/taxes/insurance was per month. Half of my wife's monthly paycheck was dedicated to childcare. We only have one more year of daycare left to pay and we want to start being able to do things we want to do, like improve our home and take vacations. Lastly, our home is not big enough to have a third child and with the housing market as hot as it is in our area, there is no way we can afford to move into a larger home and pay for daycare for the next five years.
22
I have every sympathy for your situation. I would like to ask about the framing of childcare as "half of my wife's monthly paycheck"? Isn't childcare a shared expense between you and your wife? She is gaining seniority and future Social Security benefits with her employment as well as paying her share towards childcare, and you both benefit.
3
I should have phrased it as, "1/4 of our income." We keep separate checking accounts and she pays for daycare each month whereas I pay for the mortgage and taxes, so that's where that comes from.
I am surprised to read this. Where I live, in NYC, there seems to be a trend to bigger families, sort of a status symbol. When I watch late night TV shows -- like Fallon and Seth Meyers -- they spend so much time talking endlessly about their toddlers it has seemed to me at times like a return to the 50s. But a lot of this may have to do with all the wealth in NYC -- when you've bought everything you could possibly buy, including a big expensive apartment and country home, maybe all there is left is having more kids to show how much money you have.
In my own generation, the Boomers, I knew many women, married and not, who chose not to have children. I wouldn't want to be a young woman now, where there seems to be so much pressure to get married and have kids and do what everyone else is doing.
8
@ellie: I'm a boomer who doesn't have children. I don't know why you think that NOW there's "so much pressure" to get married & have kids, etc. - because I definitely experienced PLENTY of "pressure" regarding both marriage & children!
PS: Yes, you're right: having a lot of children in NYC is now a status symbol. It means you can afford a really big apartment, private schools, day care and usually a nanny.
6
A healthy future for people, and the other forms of life on this earth, depends on our ability to live in accordance with the rules of the life support systems (ecology) of the earth. These laws are:
1. The law of diversity.
2. the law of interdependence,
3. the law of ecological niches, and
4. the law of finite resources.
We are violating those laws now, and are hurdling, most of us blissfully clueless, towards the 6th major extinction event over the next 1-2 centuries. Our human population explosion, is the primary cause of this slow-rolling
tragedy. Our anthropocentric arrogance and ignorance leaves us clueless, while governments and corporations, big businesses, addicted to "growth", encourage us to destroy ourselves more rapidly (our dependence on large institutions depends on an ecologically damaged earth). We could decide to understand our declining fertility - if we did, we would celebrate - reward it, decide to, as a civilization, stop human population growth, civilly - with incentives, and other civilized means, and then move on towards a more likely sustainable future of 2 billion people, using collaboration, incentives, and other pro-social means. If not, it will happen violently, unpredictably, chaotically - decades of savagery - terror, disease, war, famine . . . .
How difficult it is to return to living within ecological laws of sustainbility is up to us - it can be civilized, or catastrophic. We are deciding, knowingly or not.
19
Thank you for such a thoughtful piece. I agree wholeheartedly.
3
I have what I've come to realize is an unpopular opinion about having children. I'm 32 and married so have spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I can't get around feeling that bringing a child into this world is inherently selfish, and that prospective parents are thinking only about their own desires when they make that choice. New parents are subjecting their children, who have no say in the matter, to a world of increasingly fewer resources and increasingly greater political and social instability. If we don't get a handle on climate change, only the wealthiest of us will be able to live comfortably at all by mid-century. Add to that very real, daily economic struggles faced by most of us that only seem to be increasing, and what kind of a life are we subjecting our children to? Furthermore, not having children is the single most impactful thing an individual can do to address climate change. Simply put, having kids seems mean, to both the earth and to the children.
The only good argument to the contrary I've heard is that some children grow up to substantially change the world for the better. We absolutely need to birth more such people - but talk about pressure!
Having kids isn't fully off the table for my husband and me (and I certainly don't think actually being a parent is selfish - quite the opposite in fact) but I have yet to be able to convince myself that bringing an unsuspecting child into this world is a net gain rather than a net loss.
19
Many of the reasons sound awfully short-sighted to me, but at least the are thinking about it. And for all the children they don't want and won't have, I say, "Thank you."
11
The options for young women (and men) do not look positive. Women who were raised to value their education and careers— many of us!— wish to succeed and find meaning in life that comes from something beyond simply being married and raising children. That model did not work for my grandmother, and wouldn’t work for me nearly 100 years later. I was raised by a working mom and a working dad who supported her and worked equally around the house to make it all possible, and feel incredibly lucky to have had that be my model. In turn, what my parents had is what I want— being a stay at home mother in no way appeals to me. I love children and want to have children someday, but I would never want my children or my family to be my whole life. However, to pay for childcare while working would essentially cancel out my annual salary, not to mention the losses in career, income, and complete lack of parental support in most if not all workplaces for women with a family. Thus, neither option seems wholly feasible or appealing. I am 23 and not planning to start a family soon, but do not see that with the current administration and the continued reverberations of Reaganomics and conservative economic and social policy, these factors will significantly shift in the next few years. And this is not to mention the very real worries about our physical climate, protections for which are being rolled back as we speak. Address these factors and fertility rates will rise.
11
This is natural (or cultural) selection at work. Among the parents in the demographics mentioned in this article, there will be strong selection pressure for parents who truly want to be parents. The people who rather spend their time with their cats will be removed from the gene pool. (No offense to cat lovers)
6
If selection for attitudes is valid: people who are aware that the Earth has limited carrying capacity will also be removed from the gene pool, while people who don't understand the basics of managing a planet will feel free to make up for them to whatever extent they can afford. Bright days ahead.
12
There shouldn’t be concern, there should be praise. There are simply too many people and not enough resources. We need populations to decline. It would be the solution to so many of today’s problems. It is certainly the fastest way out of poverty for young people today. We also need to end social welfare programs that encourage unwanted births.
32
What social welfare programs that "encourage unwanted births" exist here in the States? I certainly can't think of any contemporary programs of that nature, nor any that were in effect even before Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we know it." Cash assistance is meager and time limited, and WIC and SNAP are certainly not enough to tempt anyone into an unwanted birth.
On the other hand, deliberate limits on access to affordable and easily accessible birth control and abortion, while the opposite of social welfare programs, most certainly do result in unwanted births.
8
The fragmenting of intergenerational families where childcare was free has had a large impact.
Bubbe, Abuella, and Mu all went to Florida.
5
Hmm, seems like Bubbe, Abuela and Mu got to do what they wanted to do - enjoy their retirement in Florida, instead of providing free childcare.
4
An Economic Anxiety Index ought to be developed to supplant the unemployment rate. It would demonstrate, as does this article, that there's continuing angst aplenty abroad in the land.
12
A lot more people are also able to come out of the closet today which is so great, and with that often comes the full ability to live a non-conventional life. Of course, lots of gay people want to marry and have kids (either biological with help or via adoption) but a lot of others, like my sister who just came out, realize that when they identify as gay, they are also telling the world that they won't be doing the whole first-comes-marriage-then-comes-baby carriage thing.
11
"Wages are not growing in proportion to the cost of living" that's it.
26
I’ve heard that there are people who don’t believe that maximizing GDP is their function in life. Could be an urban rumor.
15
This article discusses a decline in the fertility rate as though it's a bad thing, when in reality, the last thing our planet needs is more people.
38
These days, I'm starting to wonder if the One-Child policy of China didn't have some merit. Of course, we'll be in an awful bind on some things, but there needs to be fewer human beings on the planet and a much lower resource drain in order to prevent Earth from becoming like Mars. For the record, I'm unmarried and have no children.
9
I think it is a very good sign that young people are putting more thought into having children...it is a much harder job than people realize. Parenting isn't for everyone and being childfree definitely has its perks!
25
With our current political mess and the conservative idea of smaller government, a lower birth rate is the obvious reward for the following:
High tuition and enormous burden of student loans
Expensive and often unavailable health care
Work environments where the employee is expendable. Job-hopping and Job-shopping as the norm. Over-burden on women to balance careers, home, family, relationships without support from family, community, employer or government resources. These are the obvious. Couple this with:
Broken family bonds
Frayed social structure
Time pressure to perform at all costs. Feelings of Detachment & perception of not belonging. Conclusion: Why bother? There is little reward for taking on a huge burden. Life is uncertain. Why complicate it?
Maybe women are making these choices because they are smarter.
In the 1970’s, Dear Abby asked her readers this question: If you had it to do over again, would you have children? 70% of her respondents said NO! Perhaps word of this has filtered down to the current generation.
28
@Jay: You've summed it up perfectly.
BTW, I know my mother (long deceased) would have been *far* happier if she'd not had children.
9
Look at the breakdown of reasons for no kids.
Other than a personal issue (met partner late; bad mom; partner not want kids, the other reasons boil down to
1: Lack of reliability of sufficient income to care for kids and the family as a whole.
2: Lower expectations of the quality of the world that any new child would be a part of.
I am a 55-year old white male engineer. I'm "well-off", so to speak, compared to many of my fellow citizens. Yet, those two factors that I listed above are why I didn't have kids. First, I have NEVER felt stable enough to warrant a belief that my kids could have a better life than I had growing up. Second, it became obvious quickly that the world was getting bad and worse. Sure, the 1970s when I came of age were terrible and, on the surface, they improved when Reagan became president, but, almost immediately - starting with the PATCO firings and defunding of energy research - it became obvious that things were going to get much worse for generations. So, I loved my kids and the only way that I knew that I could protect them was to not have them.
Really, anyone who chooses to have a child today should be sued by their kid 18 years from now because bringing that kid into this world is a tort.
22
There's a fair amount of political correctness in this article, which is unfortunate, but many of the points made are valid and concerning.
The part about "women's careers stalling" is probably correct, but the reason is likely that women stay home to take care of their children. This is not really discrimination, it's a life choice.
Should childcare and paid time off be provided? These are tough decisions we as a society will have to make. Taxes would likely rise and salaries for all decline to pay for such benefits; is this fair to those who choose not to have children?
A real concern is the costs of college. College costs continue to rise much faster than inflation, and the value of a liberal arts college degree seems to be declining, as grade inflation runs rampant, up to 25% of students take double time on exams, and the rigor of many courses seems in doubt. If an inability to afford a family becomes the price of college, tough choices are going to have to be made.
5
Apparently Alex has missed all the recent studies on how maternity affects women's perceived competence and dedication in the workplace.
Here's one:
http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/getting-job-there-motherhood-penalty
It IS discrimination and it affects women's life choices.
4
This is why I am unimpressed that the unemployment rate has fallen. Financial insecurity is a much better index of well-being. It remains through the roof, as this article is ample behavioral proof.
15
This planet of ours has been pillaged and destroyed beyond any recovery. I could never, despite having the means, bring a human being into this world. Clean water shortages, extreme climate fluctuations, and adulterated food supplies
are devastating and super depressing . Why subject a child to these?
18
I don’t want kids. I can take them in small doses but not for long sessions. And no I won’t fall and love and want to give a man a kid to demonstrate my love. If a man wanted to give me a kid I’d ask for a new car instead. No ....if I had my own I’d would not like them. I’d probably forget them at the gas station. My friends kids are enjoyable. I can interact with them for a while then escape. But do not think less of me because I refuse to participate in parenting.
36
People who would judge you poorly for not having children are not worth listening to.
13
You seem to be arguing that women are having fewer children because of what you refer to as "gender equality"... when in fact nearly all of the top 8 reasons cited in the graph for choosing not to have children, or more children, were economic. Your column suggests that the # 1 reason was, "wanting more leisure time and personal freedom" and yet that was actually # 6..more than 20 percentage points behind, "Child care is too expensive" and other economic concerns. The commentary was not reflective of the data that you are presenting, and appears to make an inaccurate argument.
18
Your comment doesn't seem to reflect a careful reading of the whole article. There are two charts. One for those having fewer children than ideal...which seems to be the one you're referring to, and one for why young adults aren't having children, which does show the prevalence of personal reasons. Additionally, the ability to make one's own choices based on economic or personal considerations is an indicator of more gender equality.
4
I find it interesting that infertility wasn’t listed as a reason. Why does society assume that couples are fertile? I’ve known many women who struggled with infertility or multiple miscarriages. In some cases, these couples opted to adopt or have one (once they carried a child to term). Surely these couples shouldn’t be ignored by The NY Times?
5
My children are the joys of my life. Like most parents - I live for them. That being said - I tell all my young, newly married colleagues the realities of having children in America - get ready to spend (in LA) approximately $2,000 per child per month on childcare and related expenses (from daycare to summer camp - the cost is insane), then the medical bills - for pregnancy and all the regular bumps and bruises, orthodontia, swim lessons, tutoring or similar (if needed). We are a country that yells how much we love children, pro-family and pro-life - and then when it comes to policy we hate families - and do not do anything to help build safe, balanced homes. We get clobbered on taxes and the rest of my paycheck goes to childare and healthcare. It's a sick and twisted country. It should not matter whether or not a person wants kids to see how destructive our system is. Everyone was a child once, not every child is here by choice and even if parents did choose parenthood - circumstances can change in a moment - the real problem is one of policy. I hope that it will be better for my children. Vote!
84
Your comment is spot on. I made a documentary about these issues, "Mothers in the Middle", that was released last year and unfortunately your experience reflects what I found in interviewing women and experts for the film -- having kids and a career is incredibly difficult financially and logistically in the United States. Our policies are not child friendly. I hope one day these issues will be a remnant of the past, and the next generation will demand better.
7
Thank you for helping to bring attention to this important issue. I look forward to seeing your documentary.
1
The best comment that I have read!
Policy and voting is key to everything in life whether you are young or old, have children or not, want children or not. Life like our planet requires balance. But balance will be lacking until we usher in a representative government that governs the majority for all vs the donor class and the 1%.
1
Based on your own percentages, it appears you are putting more emphasis on gender equality than is warranted. 64% say child care is too expensive, and then 4 other categories related to finances before you even get to leisure time. If that isn’t a wake up call related to changing policy I don’t know what else would do it! Unless maybe Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Mitch McConnell get pregnant. And Donald Trump, yeah, let’s throw him in there too. That would change things in a hurry.
6
Money, as in the lack of it; coupled with the ever escalating cost of living: housing, child car, food, transportation, insurance, etc.
7
Maybe I missed something, but it isn't totally clear to me what these figures are comparing to -- 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. In any event, one thing I know for sure as a 71 year old is that in the past 40 years or so, maybe more, there has been a tremendous increase in the US standard of living -- or at least in the EXPECTED standard of living -- that is home size (in sq. feet) and quality, number of cars owned, electronics owned, trips taken to Disney, Hawaii and Europe, etc. I don't think this has been driven by increases in income, but simply by increases in availability of these goods and services and desires created by who knows what (TV, the internet, I have no idea). At the same time, I get the picture incomes haven't been keeping up -- or at least the hours of work and number of household members working has had to increase to get the income to the needed level to have all this stuff (not to mention easy credit). Maybe if there was a way to get more people to reduce their standard of living -- live in smaller homes, own fewer cars, take fewer trips, cut down on trips to Whole Foods -- there would be more money for other stuff (not to mention less debt).
3
The author really needs to explain the concept of "ideal" fertility rates. It seems to me that the ideal rate is the rate that a person chooses. The blind assumption that we should encourage people to have more children is bizarre, given the world's population numbers. Where does this concept come from?
18
conservative policies surrounding reproductive Rights are coincidentally the very policies that will produce the most consumption. five years delay gets positive predictor on stock returns. more babies, more returns to those wealthy enough to have investments (r2=0.04)
1
Finances and career growth are my two primary reasons for not having children. I can’t think about having a family and/or buying a house until my student debt is taken care of. Worsening my negative wealth would be irresponsible. Second reason is I am afraid, as an ambitious woman, of my career completely stalling if I have children. I’ve worked hard to get where I am and don’t want to see my career plateau just because I have a family.
16
There are just 2 or 3 key reasons that determine whether people will have children and raise a family or not .
Unless we can remove/alleviate the myriad components that form them, even less people will have children.
Not mentioned in any of the responses given , none of which are reasons , but factors leading up to and only forming key parts of what they are,but are best described as just some of the symptoms, but not the disease itself.
The key reasons why Americans are having less children or deciding to have none at all is due to the loss of Hope, Optimism and Confidence in the future...not of a better future but a fear of a worse future awaiting them in the tomorrows to come.
These key reasons have been , shaped, forged, created, seen, feared and dreaded and there are little signs of things getting better as opposed to becoming bleaker and it is these feelings, conscious, or unconscious yet affecting so many , more and more and which lie in the hearts and minds of so many as they fear for their future and contemplate (for those who may) how could they hope to succeed to raise a child when they have doubts if they will even make it.
The Federal and State Governments could do so much more to really change things for the better, for the greater good and in the doing, for all Americans dreaming once again, for a better tomorrow and of their hopes being met.
And if that happens, reflected across a more optimistic society fuelled by hope...
...the babies will come.
4
"The key reasons why Americans are having less children or deciding to have none at all is due to the loss of Hope, Optimism and Confidence in the future."
Um, no. Actually, i just don't like spending time with children. At least a million and two things i'd rather do with the time i have on the planet.
1
This article needs to be edited to distinguish between having kids vs raising kids. As an adoptive parent of 2 kids, my husband and I might have adopted a third but for the cost of raising kids and the cost of college.Where do we fit in the statistics given here?
6
Interestingly, planet sustainability didn't come up as a consideration for reproduction.
I cannot fathom bringing a human into a place undergoing such alarming climate change.
9
Or maybe the human you raise will end up solving climate change....
"Worried about population growth" and "worried about climate change" were among the choices selected.
1
I think this question needs to be flipped around: my question to my peers is why are you having kids? Given the society we live in, where companies are developing bullet-proof clothing for kids and communities are being poisoned for the sake of corporate profit, I think it is irresponsible to have kids.
Not to mention climate change, mass extinction, factory farming, famine, disease outbreak, deforestation, nuclear warfare, inflation, terrorism, water shortages... it is not fair to bring children into this world.
I would like to hear a sound argument for having kids.
29
Hi Meredith. I hear this statement echoed repeatedly. My best answer to this is that life endures. Look at WW1 and WW2 for example. It looked like the end of days. And yet the human spirit endured. Half the world fell into chaos while the other half watched. I'm sure that if our parents and grandparents weren't so "irresponsible", we wouldn't be here today.
3
Those children might grow up to solve some of these problems, don't forget. Not all people choose high-paying paper-shuffling careers. Unfortunately the 60s generation that was supposed to do so much (they said) have not, so our children (some of them) will have less to work with as they try to make things right.
2
"I would like to hear a sound argument for having kids."
How about we as a species cease to exist without reproducing.
This disgusts me. We treat humans as just another statistic to the labor force. “We need more children to replace the labor pool!”, people decry. This is the definition of using people as a mere means to an end. How about this, life is a task and has much structural and contingent forms of suffering. It’s repetioys nature can be characterized as absurd and meaningless. Perhaps this generation doesn’t want to bring more absurdity and meaninglessness into the world. No new people to experience the structural and contingent harms of life. No more laborers to add to the workforce.
7
sorry to say, boy for the whole human history people had kids to work in the field. This childcentrism whereas we have kids to love and nurture is very new (and apparently not enough of an incentive to actually have them)
8
But this article and many like it do treat having children as an economic resource, it’s just technocratic and aggregate-based thinking rather than pragmatic/immediate desire for more homestead labor units. Really, it’s not that different, just the former is looking at it from a statistical/labor resource point of view.
The point to all of this though is that perhaps. As the ethics of antinatalism state, it’s best to not have any children for the mere fact that it’s wrong to bring a new person in the world who will suffer and be burdened with the task of existing at all. No new child..no new suffering.
1
So the American capitalist system with thrives on worker insecurity is one of the main reasons. Meanwhile the Christian Fundamentalist support this family unfriendly capitalism with their cross and flag. It is not lax morals. selfishness, or careers, it is the un-supportive capitalism of the US which makes abortions and birth control a more appealing choices.
10
I am 40. How can you convince younger people to have kids when they may have watched Gen X struggle and still struggle with taking care of kids and keeping stable careers. It has been difficult. The cost of daycare is astronomical. I thought daycare was high 15 years ago when my son attended. It's also not like it used to be when more people, even non-family members helped others care for their kids. There was always someone willing to watch or keep a watchful eye on kids. Now, so much responsibility is placed on the parent..often times one because of divorce or non-stable relationships. It's too much for them.
12
Good reason to encourage legal immigration. The US will need more workers to pay taxes and provide services.
8
The US population has more than DOUBLED since 1950....putting a strain on environmental resources, housing, food production, education, job opportunity, wildlife habitat etc....
If there’s one thing we DON’T need more of on this planet of ours, it’s more human beings!
27
I am a boomer and when I was younger and people were getting married and having kids this (the future of the planet, etc), seemed to be a much greater concern than what I generally hear from young people these days. Nowadays I don't think I ever hear people express that concern in connection with the idea of having children.
1
From the perspective of advanced age, I think that young women have become too picky in finding a suitable partner and the young men seem to be immature and not willing to commit. Young people have such a long runway these days.
5
we're picky because we saw our mothers be smothered and abused
10
Women are picky because they have seen their own mothers lead unsatisfying, even miserable, lives. They are also acutely aware of how the deck is still stacked against them in the workplace. They also realize that being married is not a requisite to having a happy, fulfilling life. They also want fully engaged, mature partners in life; not to become a parent to a man boy.
And lastly, if young men are, as you say, "immature and not willing to commit" why would any sane woman want one?
32
The childfree life is more fun. That’s the real reason. People like to spend their time and money in other ways than raising children. Children are a cash and energy drain and they end up hating you anyway, so what’s the point? And men can end up in prison if they don’t pay child support. You can be required to get a job to pay for college for somebody who despises you. Or you can have plenty of time and money to go out with friends, take a vacation, buy a sports car. To say this is about affordable daycare is a laugh.
15
I am childfree and broke from paying for other people's kids. I also spent the last several years of my life caring for my sick parents. This was not fun. I have to go to work and worry about money all the time, because as a woman I get lousy pay, paycuts, tax increases, no writeoffs because I have no kids. I guess it's more fun if you're rich, but the rich are all breeding. Go figure. And wait 'til I get old. I just hope I die before that happens.
1
Stephanie: Not only are you paying for other people's kids, but, assuming you are not married, you are also subsidizing the enhanced Social Security and Medicare benefits that married people get without making larger contributions. Inequities like this ended in the private sector decades ago (including at private employers likeThe New York Times).
1
Want more kids? Go back to agriculture times when kids were actually useful. People never had kids only to love them, kids used to have a function, they worked. In an industrialized world they have to study 20 years because not many jobs rely on potato picking anymore
11
US politicians and culture blame women for having too many or too few children. Expensive healthcare, failing public schools, rotten childcare policy, massive student debt, denial of climate change and a Congress working for billionaires is not a pro-family society. So many women make a thoughtful, responsible choice and we are still chastised. Elected officials need kids to take dreg jobs and serve the military, beyond that there is no action showing love and respect for our children ie our high US child poverty rate not even being discussed in DC. Politicians have failed kids and now there might not be enough for a strong future.
12
It's not just the politicians, but American society overall. People don't want their tax money going to pay for other kids, especially if they are a different color. There is an anti-intellectualism streak in this country so little support for public schools. The libertarian ethos in many parts also means little support for any government programs at all. The conservative, me first, ethos has created our failed family policies. Don't see that changing any time soon.
8
This article hits it on the head. One cannot have a middle class existence in the USA if one has a lot of kids. Child production has been outsourced to Mexico, Haiti, Santo Domingo, Central America and India. Domestically child production is being done by black single mothers living on fast food jobs. America's future children are in the Punjab, Pakistan, Sub Saharan Africa and Central America among other locations and it does not seem Mr. Trump understands that the people he is insulting are working on providing the USA with a pliable future workforce. This is the same situation in Germany. People in the first world cannot live the life of their parents with more than one or two kids at best. Germany needs millions of migrants from South Asia and Africa. We should consider that we need the people we are cruelly holding up at the border and we should be thankful so many want to come with their seven or eight kids.
2
This data is really hard to believe when almost every woman I see on TV is pregnant or just had a baby. Maybe this year's boom hasn't been counted yet.
3
It doesn't take much to understand why fewer people are thinking of having kids, when the economy goes south and anxiety is present birth rates decline. People if they look at the future and see gloom often don't want to bring a child into that world, afraid for its future. The period from roughly 1931-1945 was one of stiffly lowered birth rates, and it is not hard to see why, it was a world of both the great depression and of Hitler and Japan and WWII, when it looked like civilization might fail. Then we had the baby boom that lasted into the early 1960's, but then the birthrate declined and took a long time to recover, in part because by the 1960s there was a lot of worry over the future, nuclear war looked inevitable and then worries over the environment also played a role, too.
I have heard members of my generation and older (I am in my mid 50's) grumble about the selfishness of milennials, how "we had kids, we scrimped and saved and enjoyed what we had", but that isn't fair, ours were a generation where you could get a good job without a college degree, you had benefits and pensions, and we didn't come out with tons of college debt if we went to school, and when we got out of school at any level we could generally get a decent job, kids today face a tough time getting that first good job. As a result, I think they are realizing their times are not their parents and grandparents and are reacting as the people in the 30's and 40's did.
11
I have to believe that the availability of of various forms of birth control has a lot to do with this.
7
I never was one to have a deep-seated desire to have children so waited until my 30s to have kids. Looking back, I wouldn't change a thing. Our family, our sons, have given me more joy than I could have imagined and have given us experiences and perspectives that those without children could never have. However, if I were of child-bearing age now, considering overpopulation, the devastating effects of climate change, economic challenges, general uncertainty in this time of change and no answer as to how to bring about opportunity for all, I don't think I would have children today. That is a sad thing for me to admit, but I understand why so many are considering not having children. On the other hand, having children is the ultimate expression of hope in one's future and the future of the planet.
7
Not having kids is awesome. It’s awesome for me, for my finances, my body, my social life, my state of mind, my relationship with my partner, and our planet. The hand wringing over slow population growth is mind boggling when you look at the overall benefits to the planet and the individuals who choose not to procreate. Try it. You might like it.
23
During the years I was working hard on my career, my brother warned me, when you get older you are going to wish you had a family to hug you and make you smile.
He was right.
Americans are already socially atomized, polarized, alienated... too alone. This trend will, apparently only worsen.
I am not convinced we really have a widespread alternative for simply having a family.
4
There are a lot of Americans who worry that America may become like Japan, particularly if we continue to move towards their immigration policies.
Speaking as a Child-Free (CF) person and half of a CF couple I'm tired of the rationalizations. The bottom line is that some people do not want to reproduce. Yes, a lot of CF people/couples rationalize the decision to deal with those who cannot understand their choice or accept it.
Of course there are enough people in America who do want and are having children to keep us going. Unfortunately for the shrinking white-majority they aren't white and that is what the brouhaha is all about. If the non-white population wasn't having children and the whites were there would not be a story.
FWIW: The term Child-Free isn't being snooty. It means you made a choice. Childless is a very painful condition where you want children but cannot conceive. These are two completely different issues.
7
More people live in Tokyo than on Canada. The Japanese will figure out how to have a thriving economy without 2 percent CAGR in population.
3
Who would want to bring a baby into this sick world?
3
Now if only the medical profession would step up and listen to us when we say we don't want children. Those of us young, healthy women (and men) who want to be sterilized should be allowed to be, without the paternalism.
Also, voluntary vasectomy should be covered by Medicare. Isn't it shocking that it's not?
12
I think maybe you don't understand who Medicare is for.
6
The reality is that the US has farmed out its population growth to immigrants, that is, until Trump came along.
1
The choices of responsible women to have fewer babies
Alas
The US population is STILL growing by 0.7% a years - the highest population growth of 1st world countries.
Nothing to worry about if you believe in population growth.
Personally, I don't. It's bad for the planet.
7
women are not parthenogenous
2
What is fascinating is suddenly the lefty media is AGOG that we have "too low a birth rate" so we "need massive illegal immigration to top it up!" -- in fact, a lower birth rate is good for EVERYONE and for the PLANET.
1
I wonder if the participants in this survey were given a list provided by the NYT, or were they given a blank line and asked to provide their own reasons.
The power of suggestion.
5
Why would anyone want children these days with the future looking so bleak. Just ask the kids graduating from high school. They are terrified of the future. I think they are very wise. Only the religious and those who refuse birth control will populate the country. Pity. Vote folks, our lives depend on it.
5
I am a boomer and recall people expressing despair over the future 45 years ago, when the future actually probably was a lot less bleak than it is today. I agree that people need to vote -- most of the things that make our future bleak and that people in this story cite as reasons for not having children could be remedied by expressing what they want and voting for it.
4
So why do my school tax bills keep going up?
4
Because somebody has to pay for all the teachers that decide to become administrators.
6
Another thought on over-population, just looking at some of my friends' kids. One friend has 3 kids, two will dropout from high school and they play video games all day. The mom (ex-wife/druggie/boozer), endorses this video game behavior. Several other kids of friends have no direction, no future, no hope -- basically because they were raised wrong and/or have no motivation. This great population increase that's happening? A lot of the kids aren't really good people, and the overly-tattooed/dope smoking/reality-show watching parents are just creating oxygen thieves. Here's to a smaller world.
6
What problem can be solved by having more people?
11
Building an army.
1
Surveys reporting the amount of time millennials spend online are mind boggling. Some analysts tie that to their low fertility rate. No doubt.
2
No kids here. Multitude of reasons -- just like anyone who does or doesn't reproduce.
Personal thought: as we reach our more senior years, a kid or two might have been nice, just as 'family' to have, and yes, maybe to watch our backs as we become less able.
When one is younger, those elder years seem darn far away, if not outright ridiculous: "Who, me, get old?" But it happens! :)
Maybe the best reason to have kids if you can -- and again -- this is simply from observation ... they seem to brighten one's life, and allow one to stay young(er) longer.
2
The picture says everything: no kids, just pets.
5
With more women choosing careers in politics, maybe we will get more friendly policies toward children. When this country chooses between a tax cut for the uber rich and mothers needing child care, maybe the next time we will choose the women's side.
6
I’m sorry, but did I miss something, somewhere?!?!?
Someone’s worried why there is a decline in births when we are facing:
Water shortages,
Famine in many areas,
High-density populations,
Mass migration/immigration,
Wars and more wars,
Etc, etc, etc...
We could only hope that other youth around the world would choose to do likewise..!
15
Having grown up seeing how little childcare fathers cover I'm not willing to put myself in this position. This isn't covered in this poll, but I think it's a subconscious thing for many women. Having the image of their mother's miserable lives.
10
I don't have kids. I'm OK with that. End of story.
14
And let's not forget all the babies being born to drug addicted women, their newborns having to go through withdrawal. And grandparents raising these children, or foster parents who are burning out.
6
I can't help making a comparison between the parents or would-be-parents of today and the parents of my parent's generation (aka The Greatest Generation, born around 1920). The parents of those old days managed to have and raise multiple children with much less (if any) employer or government support, or help, or protection that is enjoyed by today's parents. My conclusion: What a bunch of whiners.
4
You are just ignorant of the facts and that is no accident. The generation following the New Deal received huge amounts of federal benefits as well as the structural benefits of still enforced racial and gender norms-nannies, mammies, all that creepy stuff that people like Justice Roberts grew up with. Reagan pulled the carpet out from under working people and Bush I nailed the lid on the coffin of the American dream, only briefly knocking on the lid during the Clinton years.
9
I wasn't talking about the generation "following the new deal." I was talking about the generation before. The New Deal was aimed at enabling men to earn a living by working a job. This was the main focus. Do a google for a list of New Deal programs and you are not going to find the things parents today are whining about not having like subsidized child care.
I wonder how many men wanted children but couldn’t find a woman who wanted children with them?
Who cares. Sounds like an incel whine when in fact it's social selection in action.
9
Any reduction in the birth rate is a plus for the envirerment. I’m still angry with NYT being so jubilant with China’s retreat from its one child policy.
If a lower birth rate means their is less support for the aged then adjustments need to be made but not for the benefit of the rich but by more economic equality for all.
10
It’s all about the money. My husband and I might have had more than our three, but when our oldest was born 18 years ago they were projecting private college costs to be 75,000 year. That was pretty accurate. We knew we could never earn enough to pay for a big enough house for many children in a good school district and still save for our retirement and college costs. The twins were a surprise, but we called it quits after them. We enjoy our three, and we enjoy saving for retirement and college. You can’t have it all.
5
I'm against parents.
4
They made a movie about this called idiocracy (albeit a terrible one).
In short: the uneducated, poor, ‘less intelligent’ reproduce prolifically while the determined and responsible are too busy to. The world degenerates.
We won’t live to see it, but presumably successful genes will Select themselves out out of the pool. This is in fact the greatest threat to developed and enlightened nations (which America hasn’t quite joined... death penalty, lack of social support system, rampant religiosity etc)
4
My husband and I both work full-time and have a toddler. We're currently wrestling with the decision of whether to have a second child, and the factors mentioned in this article all complicate our choice. Under the right socioeconomic circumstances, we'd love to give our son a sibling, but here are the main things making us pause:
- The declining quality of U.S. public education. Private schools have smaller class sizes and better resources, but we aren’t sure we can make it work for two. Even if we went with public school, the prospect of paying college tuition for two scares us, and we feel strongly about our kid(s) graduating without debt.
- The work-and-childcare dance: Kindergarten in the local public schools gets out at NOON, and grades 1-6 get out mid-afternoon. Childcare is ludicrously expensive, to the point where I would nearly be exchanging my paycheck with the hypothetical caretaker. We’ll find a way to manage it with my son, but with two kids on different schedules, how could we both continue to work?
- The isolating experience of parenting in the U.S.: The multi-family communal living arrangements (such as those in Denmark) and strong extended family networks that we see elsewhere in the world don’t seem to be central to U.S. culture. Being a parent requires a lot of you emotionally, and the prospect of having another child with no outside support is exhausting.
The logical solution (apart from knocking on Denmark's door) is to just have one.
11
In other words, the “ideal” number of children is zero. Great for the planet!
10
This is so obvious that I can't believe it's "news". I have 2 kids and everything here is spot-on.
Childcare for an infant in a daycare center (not private nanny!) is $2000/month and drops to "only" $800 by the time you get to elementary school. Or you can quit your job and throw your career away to be a SAHM. Except if you do that you'll never get back into your old career or job unless you go back to college & start completely over from scratch. It's completely depressing.
28
are people working in childcare making fortunes then? Where does the money go? It makes no sense
2
11 hours a day of eldercare for my mother would have cost $4180 a month - the maximum rate for 11 hours at the local PreK is $1600 a month, which I subsidize with my taxes. So if you think childcare is expensive, wait 'til you see how much eldercare is going to cost you. FYI my take home pay was $2600, so Ma did not get 11 hours of care a day. I wish I could have sent her to the PreK.
3
A long time ago (I am now 81) I really wanted to have a large family. That I was an only child and saw 'Cheaper by the Dozen' as a jolly way to live, contributed to my wish.
When married with two children and a third on the way, I began to have misgivings. When not too much later there was another baby expected, my body was no longer holding up so well. So that was it. But we had no student loans. My husband had had the G.I. bill to get him through college. With a $200 per year scholarship, commuting to college, working summers and weekends we had not carryover responsibilities. We were poor but educated and happy.
Life is so different now-a-days. Science knows so much more and will increase in understanding as the years go by. We must just think ahead.
7
The Gilbreths could probably not afford to live in Montclair anymore. I have no children, and other people's kids cost me $9000 a year, over 25% of my salary. Fixing up my home and getting ready to leave. Not having kids has not saved me from paying for them.
2
Hello, leftists!
Trump voters are having children.
4
If the decline in fertility was due to economic insecurity, one would expect richer people to have more kids. In fact, it’s the opposite—richer people in America have fewer kids than poorer Americans, and richer countries have lower fertility than poorer countries. This suggests that the decline in fertility is more due to young people today having more choices and more ways to find meaning in life besides raising kids.
9
richer countries have fewer kids because they don't work in the fields anymore. We have no fields. Kids in rich countries are not an economic gain, they are a cost. They need to study to get a job
3
In the poorest countries, like India, there is little birth control and one's children are your social security. Since there is no government support in one's old age, having kids is your only chance that someone may look after you.
Different incentives drive child bearing in rich vs poor countries.
4
NOT TRUE - the rich here are all breeding and breeding and breeding - I know, I pay the bills.
1
I'm a 26-year-old woman, growing up I always thought I'd have kids. I remember being in high school and very clearly believing that I would end up adopting a child before I got married - motherhood was far more certain than marriage for that fact. But things charged. For one fact, I fell in love and realized there are a lot of adventures I want to have with him before children. More significantly though, I realized I didn't have a good reason for wanting children. I realized that the thought of being pregnant made my stomach churn. I realized that when I looked at women close to my age pushing strollers or carrying toddlers that all I wanted to do was run-away as fast as I could. And I realized that was okay. I'm excited for my friends who are having kids, but I also recognize that that's not for me, at least not right now. I don't think I'm alone with this. I think a lot of my generation is realizing it's okay to not what kids or not be sure if we want kids, so we're taking it a little slower. We're realizing that having kids shouldn't be something you do because that's what people do; it's should be an active choice that you believe is going to make your life fuller.
26
I was surprised at the lack of 'pregnancy' in the reasons in the poll. It's quite common in my country for couples to forgo having kids (especially subsequent kids) because of bad pregnancy experiences (even within the family/friends circle)
12
My husband & I desperately want to have kids, and have had multiple miscarriages for medical reasons.The doctors have said I can try again, but now, I either need to use IVF or meds. If the United States is so worried about the decreasing births,then they should subsidise or cap IVF. I'm in nursing & know my options. Beyond that, when we considered adopting, we found that it would cost us at least $30K. You would think there would be some kind of regulation on the costs. Surrogacy was also a consideration but now, that's more expensive then IVF. The reality is, those of us who want to have children are waiting until later so that we can have a career. I'm grateful to be an American. But some of the way things are handled in the U.S. leave a lot to be desired. You want a higher birth rate? Then look to other developed countries. You'll find that they have paid maternity leave in all but 3 countries-the U.S. is one. You'll also find paid paternity leave in many of those countries. In the U.S., even though there are laws against discriminating against a pregnant woman, most of us are aware of the reality. Leave and they may find your position, "cut". Make parenthood affordable for us and U.S. citizens. I hope to afford fertility treatments,but won't put us into major debt. Why would I want to bring a child into a situation like that? There are also religious issues for some - the Catholic Church is against IVF and surrogates. For some, I believe that is a concern as well.
15
I view this as very good news. It will create changes, but life is all about changes and handling them well. If the predictions are true, then maybe wildlife and wild and green lands will stand a chance, our energy and resources will last until we switch to renewables, development will slow down to sustainable speeds, and humanity will grow up and learn to live in peace.
Many more people is only good for property developers, everyone else loses. As for the economy, it will probably have to be a case of less people with more money, instead of today's program of more people with less money. Not at all a doom and gloom picture.
45
My wife and I had planned for five children. Double-digit inflation in the 1970s and a salary-freeze caused even our frugal lifestyle to exceed my income; my wife returned to work. Our three children are fine, but I am sorry that we didn't find a way to have more.
6
The article "Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why" interested me the most because some people had weird assumption about themselves without even experiencing something like that. For instance some people think that they won't be a good parent. Others do not want to have a child because they think it is to expensive. If Americans start to have fewer babies then there is a chance that the upcoming generations will be smaller and smaller and soon will come to an end. If people just think about themselves most often rather than the upcoming future then this is possible. I do understand that finding work is very difficult but if one sets it as a goal then everything can be achieved.
2
The world is over-populated. Smaller birth rates is a good thing. (And I don't think anyone who doesn't want children should have them just to perpetuate us as a species.)
8
I believe that obscure social laws are operating to constrain reproduction on our overpopulated planet. "Good jobs with good benefits" are diminishing daily before our eyes. Who wants to bring children into the world with a destiny of working 3 gig jobs with no health, retirement, or paid leave benefits? Where "monetizing your downtime" is a constant message.
Vaulting one's own offspring into one of these coveted "good jobs with good benefits requires constant attention from parents - getting child into the advanced math class, resume-worthy extracurricular, competitive sports, a gap year, etc. It requires doing the kid's science project along with him ("our science project") so his project is ranked higher than someone else's. Worrying about the right contacts, right school, right clubs.
It's pretty dreary and sounds like no fun. I watch my peers worry, worry, worry about the economic situation of their children and grandchildren, often stripping their own income to direct funds to less well off children.
Even if one has the money - the idea you have to spend virtually all free time attending to your children .... not fun.
This economy is operating with fewer "good jobs with good benefits." What is the logical reaction to that?
79
My dad stayed in a stressful job that ended up killing him. I ran into a new graduate yesterday who plans to make her living as a travel blogger. Kids are a sacrifice.
1
It's hard to love and nurture without the energy that comes from a sense of optimism that tomorrow will be better than today. I think the answers show a lot of societal angst about the possibility that tomorrow may be worse.
While that practical pragmatism may actually be good for the planet and our families, it's also a sad commentary on where our collective psyche is.
55
It is not at all surprising that so many of today's young women are choosing to not have children in the USA. Compared to other developed countries women (and families) are ill served by user pays insurance (poor prenatal care), outrageous costs of hospital births (including overuse of obstetricians), no policies to support appropriate and decent maternity leave, and child care options that are expensive and often patchwork.
And note to women who can afford it: egg freezing is in no way a guarantee of having babies later in life. There is a generation of women who are going to be dealing with a whole heap of grief when they discover the hard way that after delaying motherhood on a promise, it won't work for them.
13
Grief for not having children of their own? Why? Life is wonderful with or without your own spawn to look after.
7
Other than having fewer people paying into social security and medicare, is a falling birthrate really bad for the country or the world?
I have five grown kids, and they are great, but the planet is finite, and with a responsive government (yet to be elected) we can solve the problem of fewer young people.
23
As part of the demographic in question, I'd mostly like to draw attention to the economic fears and the fears linked to climate change or 'global instability'.
In a lot of ways, it feels unethical to want to bring children into this world. We're doing nothing about any of the dozens of existential threats to life on earth, and the whole globe has taken a shift towards insanity.
I can barely be confident of my own financial or personal security over the next couple dozen years. I am incapable of affording reasonable living accommodations (without a roommate) unless I'm making seventy or eighty thousand dollars a year (nearly double the median income where I live).
66
Several young people we know have forgone parenthood because of severe genetic issues within their families. In my opinion, their decisions have been wise.
28
Household formation is the best stimulus for economic growth. Drywall can be imported from China, but skilled labor for construction for new homes and renovation for existing housing stock cannot be outsourced.
Financing, inventory management, aggregate mining and material transportation create white and blue jobs. Buying appliances and furniture create factory and retail jobs.
From a socio-political standpoint, the study should have data collection and analysis that show the effect of daily chaos created by Trump fueling uncertainty.
5
As a nulliparous environmentalist, I applaud the drop in fertility. I wish it had come much, much sooner - but for better reasons (e.g., consciousness about ecological footprints; smaller families tend to do better). It hurts to see all the fear out there.
I'm very sad about the reasons many cite for their decision to forego parenthood. Except for "want more leisure time" those reasons are basically grim, reflecting the sad state of current affairs.
I'm further saddened by how far down the list is concern for our crowded and warming world - but I'm not all that surprised.
One's personal survival - often translated as the ability to pay for necessities and higher education for one's children - is just too important for the vast majority.
How did the richest country in the world force so many to think they're in a war zone that would be insane to bring children into?
88
So true, our world is too crowded. Over-population is one of the biggest problems on this earth and it's often ignored. Paul Ryan recently said to solve America's problems, we need to have a much bigger population. Wrong. Los Angeles by 2050 is expected to add 1.5 million people, Seattle is on that pace, too. Where are we going to put everyone? We don't need more people and more waste, we need less people. I've never understood why people think that's a bad thing?
60
The actual trend of delivering fewer American babies is not a problem; indeed it is a blessing for our stressed planet.
Unfortunately, many of the root causes that are cited in not having kids are dismal and economically based.
We live in a time where we can engineer robots to do our labor - we long passed the point where population increases lead to productive increases in scale. Rather, we are literally choking our planet. Every new mouth to feed means another tiny piece of rainforest somewhere is converted to a monoculture crop like soybeans.
So this downward trend should be a cause for celebration even if some of the causes are indeed downers.
20
Glad someone had the bright idea to actually ask the questions and collect data on the answers, which could be helpful for making public policy. Of course, many people (including many of our elected so-called representatives) are too blinded by dogma to bother looking at such information. It is so much easier to demonize women and couples who choose not to have children, whether through contraception or abortion, than to ask why and then do something that might help alleviate the underlying causes. She
13
Glad someone had the bright idea to actually ask the questions and collect data on the answers, which could be helpful for making public policy. Of course, many people (including many of our elected so-called representatives) are too blinded by dogma to bother looking at such information. It is so much easier to demonize women and couples who choose not to have children, whether through contraception or abortion, than to ask why and then do something that might help alleviate the underlying causes.
2
My husband and I are facing this issue right now. We are in our mid to late twenties and live in an apartment. I don't want to even consider children until we are settled in a house and have savings. So far, it feels like a our lives have been a game of catchup trying to balance bills and still save money. We both have good careers but the cost of living is so high that we are struggling. Living on one income is not an option in this area. We will have to choose if we want to move back to our hometown where the cost of living is lower and we would have family support for childcare, but there would be very few career options for me. I don't want to move back, but if we want children, that's the only option that makes sense.
18
This is exactly what we're dealing with. It feels like a constant uphill battle to save adequately and stay on top of bills (and Sallie Mae). We live in a city without family close by, and without the option of familial childcare to offset the cost even partially, I can't realistically see us having kids for 5-8 years.
12
Same. Mid-30's.
In metro Boston, it’s 21K per child per year for daycare. We are almost vertically one and done. Good thing she’s so cute and the absolute best thing that’s ever happened to me. Of course, we are deemed “selfish” for not “giving her” a sibling. For every relative, neighbor and coworker who asks, when’s the next one? I say, will you be sponsoring the baby from birth through college? I’d like to take a few vacations before I’m 50 — with my kid. Selfish mama right here!
156
Kids are a drag maaan! Never wanted one. I’m 64. So far so good!
26
But presumably you won't forego the Medicare and Social Security benefits paid for by the kids of others.
2
What?! He presumably paid into Medicare and SS his entire life as well as paid local taxes to pay for the schools and other kid-centric costs.
2
You are the result of 3.5 billion years of reproductive success, tracing back to the origins of life on Earth. Your ancestors survived heat waves, ice ages, predators, famine, plagues and wars, and as a result, you exist. If you fail to reproduce, you are the first in your biological line not to do so in in 3.5 billion years. You are the end of your line. Nature doesn't care about your reasons. It only cares that you pass on your genes to the next generation. This is called survival of the fittest. Those who don't reproduce go extinct. Those who reproduce are the future of the species. That's the way this game of life is played.
13
Ever watch Idiocracy?
1
7 billion people worldwide hold a vast reserve of genetic code that makes yours redundant. To imagine that your genes are special snowflakes is absurd.
13
Sometimes not passing your genes on to the next generation is a conscious, thoughtful choice.
I agree with OneNerd, "just not interested".
11
Capitalism: it is cheaper to have/raise babies in 3d world countries and then import them as immigrants than to have/raise them in the USA. So that is what will happen. No need to worry about a labor shortage.
20
I didn't understand the point of this article. Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that women have more choices in terms of what to do with their adult lives, and one of those choices is not having children? After millennia of being enslaved by our reproductive organs, women are finally empowered enough to consider their lives beyond making babies. Plus, it helps out with bringing down the 7 + billion people on this planet which is way too freaking many. So, win-win in my book.
134
I agree that it's a good thing to reduce the population - especially among Americans who are so greedy with resources.
As far as the point of the article - maybe it's not trying to say it's good or bad - just presenting information. Refreshing.
14
I agree that our population is too out control, but reproduction shouldn't be a privilege of the wealthy. If it's too expensive for the middle class to have children, that's a problem.
1
Very interesting demographic analysis, however, the real reason is the low wages: now we have "working poor" with one, two and even three jobs, that have to be in welfare; food help, rent assistance, etc.
The rich have been sucking all the productivity gains of the workers for over a generation now, and things are worsening.
So the root of this evil is the rich: Medicare, Medicaid and SS will be cut by Trump and his minions (read: "Republicans") to pay for the lowering of the taxes to the billionaires.
Like Warren Buffet declare many moons ago "if there is a class struggle, we are wining": yes, it is the war against the poor... again.
84
I am a Gen X who did not even think about marriage or kids. Now I am married and have two children (toddler and baby) and honestly I can't imagine life without them. I am not a religious person but having these two tikes is nothing short of of a miracle. My perspectives on life and the meaning of life have shifted. My concept of love has shifted. I thought I knew what unconditional love meant before kids. In truth I had a tiny glimpse of what it meant.
30
Yeah well you can be childless and still have a new lease on life. My unconditional love for my pets pretty much matches yours for your human kids.
7
I have the same lease on life, just a different perspective. Sorry if I touched a nerve, based on your response. My comment was a personal observation, not meant to offend you in such a way as to draw comparisons.
With that said, my love for my pet is not even in the same ballpark as my love for my children. My children embody my wife and I and I have hopes and dreams for them; I can't say that about my pet. I'll end there with the comparisons, though I could list dozens.
Not having children is the most environmentally friendly thing a person can do. How about looking at this and writing about it as a positive trend and finding ways for all those other variables including" immigration, education, housing, the labor supply, the social safety net and support for working families" to fit around it.
55
Actually the most environmentally friendly thing we can do is self-eradicate. Homo sapiens have been absolutely destructive on this plant. Countless species displaced and many hunted to extinction.
8
IMO, women would be a lot better off having children in their early 20s, devoting their time to their children when they are young, and delaying their education and entry into careers until the kids are in school. Many degrees can be obtained online now and this opens up the possibility to get much of it done while raising children at home. Once they enter the career market they will be more likely to advance along with the men because they won't be sidelined to the "mommy track". Their husbands will also be more settled in their career and can help out more with the kids by then.
But then when I read that a 26 year old woman would rather play with her cats than raise a child it says a lot, not much of it good, and I have to shake my head at what young women think they have been supposedly liberated to be - perpetual children?
5
well, did you propose marriage to a woman in your pre-early 20's so you can have kids in your early 20's?
1
Don't judge. Not saying the 26 year old woman is right, why isn't the same question asked of men who choose to not marry and not have kids? As for women doing everything later - why? Life doesn't happen according to plan. There are too many women that I know of who sidelined their education and careers to help out family, husbands, boyfriends, etc and planned to get back on track. Worked for some but other things (life) got in the way for the others.
7
How many families in this scenario can afford to have one parent stay home and pay rent/mortgage/healthcare/etc. on one income these days, especially with the crushing load of student debt young folks face (I assume in your scenario the woman would be marrying/partnering with a college grad. Which isn't even realistic, because educated people tend to want to marry other educated people. And if we're talking about two folks with only HS degrees, good luck finding a job one income can support).
Not to mention, most young women want to go to college, just like men do, not start having babies right away.
(Do you actually know any young women?)
Moreover, as a former stay-at-home mother, I can assure you that taking care of young kids while earning a college degree online is not a realistic notion.
38
Great: so young women (and men) who are responsible, who have educational and professional goals and aspirations, are choosing not to have children. So more of the children who are born will be born to those who are irresponsible or otherwise are unmotivated to *think* about how many children they should bear, educate and support.
Wouldn't it be better for our society to provide more support to children and would-be parents, and more support for contraception and family planning, rather than simply pick up the tab for the kids whose parents couldn't afford them and couldn't be bothered?
57
the simplest way to transfer child services to intelligent people is childcare (intelligent parents tend to have jobs). The US has a huge problem with childcare that I can't comprehend. How can childcare be expensive if the people who work there make little money?
23
Idiocracy is a satirical movie based on your comment.
5
What a classist argument.
1
Today's 25-42 year olds are a product of their own upbringing. More than ever before, they grew up in single-parent households, and with fewer siblings than prior generations.
As a result, today's 25-42 yr olds are acutely aware of the unreliability of 'life' partners, and the incredible parenting burden that falls on single parents. They are also unlikely to have been significantly involved in the care and rearing of infants and small children in their extended family.
As a result, people are both afraid to have children and unaware of the substantial benefits of doing so. This is tragic.
The prime directive of the natural world is to reproduce. This is how humanity evolved to the present day. Should it be any surprise that raising children is, at the same time, the most difficult and most emotionally rewarding thing most parents' lives? Are there statistically significant numbers of parents out there who actually regret having children?
I'm glad that people (especially women) now have the choice to parent, or not. But I'm afraid that choice is being exercised in ignorance of what's being left on the table. A child can fill its parents' hearts so much love you fear it might burst. Those who miss out on this incredible part of the human lifetime have my sympathy.
13
Not everyone shares your views, and in a world with finite resources, that’s ok.
My sympathy is with those whose life choices are made based on lack of resources, familial or societal compulsion, or other pressures - no matter what those choices may be. What a blessing that more folks have reproductive choices these days (though we still have much work to do).
18
Rewarding to many but not to others. Life is not easy it is a journey and the incredible part of which you write is not the answer for all. Don't judge - your sympathy is patronizing.
12
Funny, if you ask 22 or 26 year olds for quotes about having children of course you are going to get wanting more time for other things, fear of not being a good parent, global insecurity etc. Try asking 32 or 36 year olds, priorities change and for many people there just comes a time in life when you feel ready, but it's increasingly not until later. Also interesting is that around 40% of births are still from unplanned pregnancies, so 4 out of 10 people surveyed here will have kids without even intending to. Nature is powerful!
13
This thinking is very common and often flawed. Not every 26 year old will change his or her mind about being child free. My husband and I have been together since college and married since we were 23. We are now 40 and neither of us has ever faltered in our decision. The reasons are myriad, but it all boils down to one thing: I don’t have the overwhelming urge to have children that I feel parents should have. I am sure that there are women, and men, who have felt like I do for 100s of years. The difference id now there’s a choice.
5
What is so sad is that we do not have a family friendly culture in the US. Having grown up in the 60s and had children in the 90s with my career and working spouse, I can see why the idea of kids is so daunting today. Unless you are lucky enough to have a job that pays a combined income (you and spouse) of $100,000 the cost of a child from birth to college/vocational grad is impossible to handle. You add in the uncertainty of steady employment even with a record number of job openings and you have so many disincentives to have kids. Your kid will have college / vocational debt, stress around access and affordability of healthcare and employers who do not fund retirement plans for employees. With the Republicans in charge of everything and attacks on social security and medicare next, who other than the top 25% earners would even consider starting a family - they sure aren't making America great for families again. Signed no grandchildren for those boomers.
94
As shown in the illustration, people are finally waking up to the fact that cats are a far more practical alternative. Society will have to adapt by raising the upper limit of income subject to Medicare and Social Security taxes.
49
There is no upper limit to Medicare taxation NOW.
There is for SS, because there is an upper limit to BENEFITS.
If you remove the cap for SS….then Bill Gates would be getting $15 million per month in his SS check.
Your check in retirement is based on your contributions!!!! It is not simply "welfare for old people".
2
How about this option , which was the one I chose decades ago , and have never regretted: Just not interested
87
"No desire for children" is on there.
Thank you NYT, for asking, and not assuming. It's refreshing to see the myth of "children or career?" dispelled. Of the long list of reasons to be Childfree or questioning, each individual will likely have a combination of reasons on your list that is unique to their situation (and others that aren't that I've heard in CF online forums - not wanting to pass on physical or mental illnesses, for example). A CF life is not free of strife or financial pressure (my partner and I have 40 hour/week jobs, we have each have a side hustle, and need to save quite a bit for retirement - if that will ever be a possibility) because existing is a hyper-capitalist society will never be so. But it can also be absolutely bloody fantastic. We exercise, create homemade meals most days of the week, explore our town's hiking and biking trails, do volunteer work several times a month, spend time with friends, and pursue our individual hobbies. When life gets busy or stressful the refrain is always the same - "Thank God we don't have children."
87
Your current life with your husband sounds so similar to the wonderful empty-nester life I share with mine, after having raised five daughters and eight sons together (all of whom have productive lifestyles and whose income taxes contribute to the financial security of the senior population in the country).
A time for everything!
1
"Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland who studies families and has written about fertility...said, 'There is no getting around the fact that the relationship between gender equality and fertility is very strong: There are no high-fertility countries that are gender equal.'" Neither Miller, in quoting him near the top of her piece, nor any commenter here, addresses this point: if all countries that are gender-equal (including, plainly, those w/ universal healthcare, childcare, and elder care, such as the Scandinavian exemplars) have low fertility rates, the correlation cannot be attributed, opportunistically or casually, to societal pressures.
All of the factors cited by respondents, in explaining their misgivings about having children, prevailed 50 and 100 years ago, too. (See: Elizabeth Kolbert on NYC's polluted 19th C streets, for one. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/hosed) What has changed is that our economy centers on tech and service, evolving fields quite unlike those where children "help run the farm" or "come work at the factory," so childbearing is now shorn of the primary practical impetus it held throughout the previous millennia of human life. It is, yes, still driven by a biological imperative and the aesthetic expression of a traditional 'life well lived'--but the concerns that used to be obstacles to surmount can now outweigh the desire.
11
Agreed, demographic transition theory shows that modernization is the best predictor of declining fertility rates as societies move from agrarian to industrial economies.
This is big historical macro change, but the immediate economic and social conditions can't be ignored, especially since pronatal policy has been shown to modestly boost rates of fertility. There are only two sources of future workers and rate payers - immigration and fertility and both levers are at the disposal of policy makers. Given current below replacement levels of fertility, modest pronatal is impactful and may contribute to big changes, since our society is not organized around high fertility peasant families with the need for lots of farm hands and experience high rates of mortality.
Essentially, it is fallacious to argue that what is true at one level of analysis and at different points in time (macro historical economic and fertility change as a result of demographic transition) demonstrates that individual micro-decision making occurring between modern couples due to social and economic conditions is a 'constant', i.e. not variable due to contemporary changes that are occuring.
1
I have and MBA, my wife a J.D. We both have stable jobs. We have two kids, and maybe would have had a third, except for the many reasons listed here.
My wife had to work right up until her due date. She could barely sleep the final month, but they expected her to keep going. FMLA only covers 12 weeks, and that can be unpaid if you don't have enough leave time banked. Even while on leave, she still had to call in to work and take conference calls. No, she wasn't compensated.
Daycare for two preschoolers was $21,000/year. That's more than a year of in-state tuition at the University of Texas. Pre-tax payroll deductions can help, but they're a hassle. College is going to cost at least $100k per child, so we need to have $200k saved in less than 20 years. For a childless couple, that's a vacation home or a garage full of nice cars.
With two kids, there is always a need to take sick/vacation leave for illnesses, wellness appointments, dental, school activities, volunteer time, etc. That leaves little for vacation, and even less of a boss's patience. Finding a sympathetic boss makes the prospect of changing jobs a major concern.
490
I fail to understand why parents feel the need to pay for their kids' college educations. What is wrong with going to a decent local college/taking out a student loan/working part-time in college to help pay bills/etc. The burden of having to save an additional 100k per child for college is utterly self-created/voluntary. My kids will get help with living expenses while in college but we've chosen to teach them to take responsibility for themselves and are enjoying a good life together now - going on those vacations, enjoying nice cars, etc. They are all perfectly happy with these arrangements. I just don't understand the plea for sympathy for your choice to slave away to save 200k for your college kids.
17
I'm right with you. I had one child. I waited until 33 and my husband was 39. He was married before with a 17 year old. I had to talk him into another child. It all came down to the cost and time to have another and we too both have very good salaries. I wanted to be sure we could save for his college and be able to retire as well as enjoy life. It's sad too. My son is now 18 and I really wish he had a sibling.
9
Alexandra, it's because we see the amount of student debt young people today have to take on. When I went to college, it cost 10K/year. I graduated with 10K of student debt, which I was easily able to pay off in 10 years (as an English major!) Now? Even at a "decent local college," like our state schools, tuition is 25K/year, and we don't qualify for financial aid. At the private college my kid will be attending, even with generous aid, it's still around that figure. I don't want my kids to face that amount of debt as they start out in life. And believe me, I'm not asking for your sympathy. I'm well aware that I'm incredibly fortunate to be able to save for my kids' college. I don't miss extra cars and vacations.
13
Oh I thought it was because they are "Mellenials".
Also it hard to have a family when they are still living at home.
5
Women will be the main "losers" here.
What % of women aged 35 - 40 with no kids, want kids?
80%, 85%?
6
Really? Upon what data is your opinion based?
11
@Jake:
No, our whole society will be the loser, because we are shrinking the next generation of citizens who would support Social Security, enter the workforce, etc. We are all interconnected.
Look at countries like Italy and Japan, which have had a low birthrate for many years. It is not a recipe for economic growth.
Let's see...we are discouraging immigrations and enacting tariffs which will be retaliated, making everything yet more expensive for all consumers. With a lower birthrate added to the mix, how many people are going to buy our products, services, etc? Who is going to attend schools?
We will be facing job layoffs, cuts to services and a shrinking economy.
2
I wanted to know the same thing!
The article that caught my eye yesterday was, "'Access to Literacy' Is Not a Constitutional Right, Judge in Detroit Rules", by Jacey Fortin.
A quickie synopsis: Just because you are a citizen, doesn't mean that you have a right to a school, books, a teacher, or that any of that must be functioning on any level of competence.
This is the Libertarian Promise: You get to do it all yourself.
However, that legal ruling came from a Federal Judge in Michigan.
How much help can you count on from your government?
Zip.
It won't help you get birth control.
It won't help you with an abortion.
It won't help with medical care,
or with child care,
or with education.
You. Are. On. Your. Own.
Now, throw in the lack of help from the sperm donor and your employer and you realize why the birth rate is crashing and burning in this nation.
Is it just the poor?
Nope.
It's universal, rich and poor.
It's black and white.
It's young and old.
It's high-school dropouts and PhD's.
It's the atheists and the evangelicals.
It's the RC's and the Muslims.
Not even God will help you out.
I understand any woman who is leery on having a child in this country.
Not one legal finger will be lifted to help you.
Not one economic finger will motion: "Need help? Right here!"
This is the "YOYO" Health Care Plan that has replaced Obamacare...."You're On Your Own".
I take my hat off to any woman saying, "No way."
It DOES take a village - and all villages in this country have burned to the ground.
1138
GREAT post!
21
Well said! Thank you!
13
Sadly, this is all too true.
11
Low fertility is why we need more immigration, not less. No matter where they were born, we need energetic motivated young people to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and "the disability" which shiftless lazy white people in Red states love so much. Republicans would rather just cut those social safety net programs and hang people out to dry.
39
I’ll take more open space over more people any day of the week, thank you.
9
"Americans Are Having Fewer Babies."
Good. The planet is already well over populated. Too many of us is going to spell doom for all of us.
84
Show of hands girls.
Who among you wish to share two decades of extensive parenthood duties with the adult boys you are either dating or are married to?
193
I see no hands.
8
A couple of years ago I sat through a market research presentation on millennials and heard a bunch of bunk about "desire for more freedom" and "less interest in property or commitment." It was hooey. Millennials have been cheated by the unrestricted, unregulated greed of a generation of selfishness, driven by a totally unscrupulous upper caste of boomers with no sense of social obligation or legacy. The primacy of "generating maximum return to shareholders" has become the rationale for ignoring the moneyed class's debt to their communities, their nation, and worst of all, their children. Millennials want the same things our predecessors wanted, and what we wanted - a stable home, a healthy family, a brighter future for their kids. They were robbed. They should be storming the Bastille right now.
152
I await the follow-up article in which parents in this same demographic are challenged to explain why they decided to have children. Except there probably won't be one as it seems to be anathema to ask this question, but just fine to harangue people -- by which I mean women -- who either are not or who consciously choose not be parents. Fact is, the answer to either question is MYOB.
34
I mean this is about a study in order to inform public policy. It's not like they sent your great aunt to harass you.
7
Really? No paid family leave, no right to health insurance, child care is wildly expensive, college is wildly expensive, saving for my retirement, etc.
USA is hostile to parents, children and especially working women.
844
This nails it. A lot of talented young women including my daughter worked in other countries with healthcare, family leave and daycare and ended up staying.
The GOP abstractions about raising children after they get bored with crying over a fertilized egg and then denying healthcare or maternity care is insanity. Donald Trump cheating on all 3 wives is not exactly a blueprint.
11
Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate. Many couples opt out of having a family and that's their choice. Our society doesn't make it easy financially for many people to consider it. What happens, though, when childless couples become elderly? Our society, which stinted on costs of having children, will have to pony up at the other end. Adult children defray enormous amounts of the cost of maintaining an elderly parent/s. Which choice is better for our society?
15
"What happens, though, when childless couples become elderly?"
Pretty much the same thing to couples with kids. They enter a retirement home. Having kids is no insurance of being taken care of until the end.
117
Kathleen, many adult children taking care of older parents can't afford the TIME for children. Or if they do have children, they can't afford the time or the money to take care of their elderly parents. Remember, people are living longer--and often sicker--and perhaps women (because it likely is women) don't want to be part of the sandwich generation.
4
Where do the employees doing service work in the retirement homes come from?
As a 34 year old woman with a partner of more than 10 years, I have pondered this topic at length. I have found many reasons to not have children and simply not enough reasons to actually have them. I strongly believe that if one cannot in all honesty say that they would be at the very least, a mediocre parent, then one has no business having children. Having seen many products of remarkably poor parenting, I think that as adults, we must be held responsible for being very honest about the calibre of parent we would be. Upon careful consideration, I have serious doubts I could make even that grade as a parent: mediocre. And no child deserves that.
36
Sometime you have have faith and just jump.
3
I support your right to not have children.
3
To be honest, If you can sit their and ask if you can\will be a good parent - you have pretty much answered the question; you will be a good parent.
All the poor parenting I have seen comes from those who don't question themselves or actions.
6
Nobody feels secure when they work for a staffing agency.
Or when the employer abandons employee evaluations, to avoid a distraught employee showing up on the evening news “can’t understand why I was laid off, I’ve had ten years of Excellent evaluations “
A deliberate or conscious attempt to keep subordinates unsure of their standing was practiced by FDR; cabinet level staffers that never bought a house, instead staying in hotels.
5
It's called fiscal responsibility. People are having kids if and when they can afford to otherwise they go into debt even further. Housing, childcare and education have gone up but pay and benefits have not so people work more than their parents do for less at the end of the day. Let's not forget about the divorce rate either but that's another topic altogether.
11
Perhaps the point is that previous generations had an easier time being fiscally responsible.... it’s systemic not individualistic.
14
The divorce rate trends downward compared to that of our (millennials') parents.
1
At age 69, I see an America that financially deprives and punishes young people with children. So many things are out of balance in this country (and the world) it makes my head spin. Wages stagnate or decline, while the cost of living continues to soar. Education, health care, and social services are starved, and secure employment with benefits is hard to find, while fat cats get fatter. Middle-class and poor people cannot keep up and the young are hit especially hard. In my opinion, financial insecurity (and economic inequity) and the failure of our country to seriously address climate change are enough reasons to postpone or decline having children.
Perhaps fewer people would be a good thing for the planet, but children renew our hope in the future and assure our social connections with one another. We must reshape our values and give priority to what truly matters: quality of life for all, especially young families just starting out in life.
35
Because everything is so expensive and is getting more expensive each year. Child Care can easily cost $1,000/month. There is no paid maternity leave. No assistance for families who make just a bit more than poverty etc. There are so many ways to spend money when you have kids. Diapers, car seats, etc etc.
34
All of the reasons mentioned here are on point. However, there is also a silent infertility crisis affecting American women of childbearing age, the causes of which no one really seems to want to explore. Could it be environmental, such as exposure to chemicals and plastics, or perhaps synthetic hormones impact our bodies more than previously thought? To make matters worse, fertility treatments are prohibitively expensive for most and have low success rates. Adoption can take years and is also expensive, and not guaranteed. More and more women are facing very real and often tragic obstacles on their pathway to motherhood and more needs to be written about it.
13
adopt.
3
Infertility is an issue, but hardly just for women. Ask a fertility clinic - they'll tell you it's just as often the men. I'm certain it's environmental, though it will be hard to prove...
4
Can you provide data for the assertion of this alleged infertility crisis? Fertility indeed diminishes as a woman ages, but with modern conditions, fertility is actually extended later into age than it had been for women of just 100 years ago. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that many women now wait until well after their peak fertility to attempt to have children?
3
Never had kids, never wanted them, no regrets.
However, the issue was once put into high relief for me in a story told to me by a coworker. He was explaining how his insurance agent was trying to sell him term life insurance on his children. His response was that, as much as he loved his children, from a financial perspective his children were liabilities, not assets, and one does not insure one's liabilities. That stuck with me because I had never considered it in such stark terms before.
It is commonly estimated that it costs close to $250,000 to raise a child to the age of 18 in the US. So for a couple to raise two children, just to keep up zero population growth/decline, upwards of $25,000 per year of extra income is needed, with zero return on investment other than the personal satisfaction of having kids and little to no assistance from gov't or society.
Personally, I see it as a great testament to the human desire to procreate that people aside from the very well off have children at all.
52
It is important to note here that while the birthrate may be slowing down, but the population of the US is still growing and will likely rise from the current 327 million to to 438 million by 2050, nearly three times the size of 1950.
Fifty years ago Garret Hardin published "The Tragedy of the Commons" to bring attention the devastation humans tend to inflict on a shared environment as a result of omnipresent self-interest. When a population synthesizes it's environment, as we clever Americans have done, we can fool ourselves into believing we can manage the price of growth.
The humanitarian tragedies of displaced people in the developing world and the consequent pressure on our own borders, are manifestations of overcrowding resulting in squandered, stolen and diminishing resources.
Sadly, growth is the engine that drives Capitalism. If there is a future of anything but mass suffering for humanity, we will need to rejigger that system and growth will need to stop - not simply slow down.
103
NYT, please make Nadia's comment an NYT pick!
This information needs to be widely disseminated.
17
Wouldn’t a national healthcare system not tied to employment ease the burden these people see in trying to make ends meet?
510
You are making the mistake of thinking that the people who CAN enact such a system WANT to ease this burden.
7
While that's a laudable goal, nationalized healthcare exists in Germany, Japan, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and in most of the developed world. All of the countries I mention have lower birth rates than the United States has, in some cases by a wide margin.
2
Having attended a high school graduation party recently where two high school dropout guests were the biological parents of an unwanted unborn child, my thought after reading this article is that women and men choosing to not have kids are not the problem, the problem is the unprepared parents of unwanted kids.
205
Money is absolutely a demotivating factor. When my daughter told me what she pays for two kids in day care it was pretty much 2/3 of her earnings! Her husband makes a good living so they can live on his take home pay but planning for the future is tough. The nice thing about the future though, is that there are occasional dollops of serendipity along with the angst.
11
I agree. The five years before K1 are very expensive for working families. For the one year that my youngest and his sister overlapped at daycare, I too was paying 2/3 of my net income for childcare. When he left the daycare for K1, I got a yearly 'raise' of $16K that I no longer had to pay for his daycare, although I had to find a babysitter to cover the hours after school until I got home from work.
Throw in the high cost of healthcare, and college loans, and I can see why young adults saddled with school loans don't feel able to start a family.
17
"When my daughter told me what she pays for two kids in day care it was pretty much 2/3 of her earnings!"
Then why is she working??? By the time she factors in gasoline, auto depreciation and insurance, clothing, etc... she is working for free. Even if she could negate these costs she is still working for 1/3 pay.
Would she and her children not be much better off if she were a stay at home mom bonding with her children?
1
A very good reason would be that even if she is not taking much home NOW, she is still building Social Security credits, might building her other retirement funds, keeping her insurance, and most importantly, STAYING IN THE GAME. It’s really, really hard to get hired back at an equivalent level when you’re out of the workforce for 5-8 years being a stay at home mom.
1
As an engineering professor who's witnessed my students' quality of life and options crumble since 1980, I can lay out why the US birth rate has collapsed.
First is outrageous cost of living in areas with jobs, not only housing but also healthcare, student loans and childcare overwhelming even "well-off" Americans, a result of the rent seeking corruption of the USA's ruling classes. America's bloated housing and healthcare costs boost GDP (a terrible misleading statistic), yet make it impossible for Americans to get an economic foothold and start families. Also, a single setback like illness, divorce or car accident will wipe out your savings in the US. (Among my ex-students who've had kids, they've disproportionately emigrated to Europe, Asia, even parts of S. America, ex. in Brazil or Chile, that have universal healthcare, affordable childcare yet taxes around the same as US.)
Second, no job security. Even well-trained STEM grads like my students are hit hard by the foolish, wildly abused cheap labor H-1B visa which Trump, for all his promises, has failed to shut down or curtail. The US is the only major country that actively discriminates against its own workers by allowing, even encouraging companies to hire near slave labor from India, where the overpopulation problem has led to half a billion willing to work for pennies. Young Americans are thus forced into contracting, the gig economy or jobs that can disappear in a moment if a cheaper H-1B hire becomes available.
706
Good points. I think most people don't understand that it's government policy to collapse the American birth rate. The government is doing this through immigration policy and trade policy that reduce the ability of native born Americans to earn a decent living. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote the essay "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind" that explained how the government can support the citizenry's ability to afford to raise families by enacting trade policies that restrict cheap imports from poorer nations. Franklin explained that this allows American workers to earn high wages and enables them to afford homes and families. Today, our government imports cheap foreign labor and cheap imports that inhibit the ability of native-born Americans to afford families. Restrict immigration and raise tariffs and our standard of living and birth rate will rise again. Unfortunately, our media and corporate elite are all about open borders and free trade and they lie to us day in and day out to maintain these policies.
20
Oh, please. It's not impossible to get an economic foothold and start families. Nor is it clear that starting families is something that the average person must somehow do.
3
But why should it be so hard?
1
When we set out to have a family, it felt essential for my husband and I. We just knew we wanted a child. So we did. After my daughter was born, our life was good, and we really did feel complete. Financially, (he was in the military) it was really up and down. At that point in our lives, having another child just wasn't possible. We were stretched financially to the limit. Later, my husband left the military and got a higher paying job. We had another baby. It was really that simple. Money. When I look at the world today, I do wobble a bit on our choice to have even two children. What does the future look like for my two girls? Already I can see they will not to be able to afford to move out on their own as teenagers, as my husband and had done. The job my husband has had for the last 15 years, that has brought us so much stability, is ending next year. This is the reality of 2018 America. That tax bill, that Republicans passed to help people like me? Well, it hasn't. Something as simple as claiming my 17 year old as a child one or two more years on my taxes may have helped a little, but its now obvious that plan really wasn't for the middle class anyway. So I understand why the younger generation is saying no to parenthood. This country has lost its way, and I think we all feel it acutely. When I talk to my girls about the future, I do not say "when" you have children, I say "if" you decide to have children.
"If".
526
No doubt many people put off having children until their mid 30's for financial reasons. A women's fertility rate starts to decline by then and many couples who want to have children can't and IVF is problematic.
3
My husband and I had two children nearly three decades ago. We thought two was a responsible number - a number we could afford and that wouldn't burden the planet. Facing the same choices today, we would have either one child or none. Our pay stagnated 20 years ago and the cost of employer subsidized health insurance has reduced our paychecks the past 8 years. Recent increases in out-of-pocket costs have further reduced our income. Climate change weighs heavily as a concern for future generations, as does a U.S. political system by and for the super rich. Is it any wonder young people are having fewer children and the middle-aged and older are committing suicide at higher rates?
301
I have three kids - but had one of them in my late thirties and two in my early-mid 40s (fortunately, naturally). I could finally afford them - my husband and I are both highly paid professionals, but even so, it is not a drop in the bucket when we pay more than $5000 a month for our nanny and preschool.
18
Yes, many of these reasons resonate with me. I have a disability, which puts me at a disadvantage with employers already. I’d also need significant, extra help raising a child, which would be very expensive. Add to that uncertainties about continued coverage of pre-existing conditions, expensive medical care, political instability and climate change, and I don’t even feel like I have a choice. It’s got to be no.
27
Simple math. In 2014, our rent was $1650/month. Childcare was $1000/month (and that was cheap for the area). So having a second child would have been $2000/month.
Not possible.
28
The guilt I feel over having 5 kids is significant and certainly affects how I parent (with radical environmentalism, vegetarianism and activism) but the same factors that deter others, like global instability, economic worries, domestic concerns are a significant part of what motivated me to have a large family. My philosophy goes something like 'no one has your back like family' and in this tense and unforgiving world, I want my kids to have each other. I'm hopefully creating the social safety net I wish everyone had. I wish this article addressed what seems the an obvious question: does high income affect family size? I'm in the 1%. The cost of childcare and education are not material for us and 3 kids is the norm in our neighborhood.
14
This is the number one reason we need immigrants. Social Security and Medicare will crash because we're not replacing young people to contribute to the fund.
25
Unfortunately, we are importing low or no skills, uneducated people and single women with lots of kids; this will not help my grandkids who are leaving college burdened with debt and no reasonably priced place to live on low wages.
Medicaid was not designed to be generational welfare.
3
The biggest lie about SS and/or Medicare is that "because" part.
The only reason that they will crash and burn is because Congress refuses to tax EVERYONE'S income.
Only those who make LESS than $116,000 are taxed on their wages for it to go into the kitty.
Make more than that?
Why, that makes you one of the protected classes of Americans! Make BILLIONS a year and you will still only have your first $116,000 taxed for SS.
Oh, we DO so love the rich in this country, don't we?
Only the poor pay taxes here.
18
"Partner"? They are usually called husbands or wives, or spouses.
2
The term is generic, and does not privledge a particular social arrangement.
42
Did I miss a mandatory marriage law somewhere?
13
The majority of women in every society have always combined working and having kids. Two centuries ago women were farmers or ran small businesses while taking care of their children. (To the trolls getting ready to reply that women stayed home and took care of kids, do you think a farmer's wife didn't farm, or a carpenter's wife didn't manage his business?) Unfortunately, today women work in offices and factories where our bosses ban children so we have to pay somebody else to take care of our children, which is wrenchingly painful and mostly unaffordable. Thus we have less children. But in the long run this is not really a problem because our broken society model will die out soon since we're not having children.
16
So, ironically, those "white rights" & other extreme right-wingers, who want white people to reproduce at a higher rate, would do well to promote liberal ideas like paid family leave & subsidized childcare. Instead, they promote ideas that deprive women of choice - they are anti-birth control, anti-choice,& want women to go back to staying home, getting pregnant & becoming ever more dependant on a man to support them & their offspring. They seem not to understand that 52% of the population is not going to give up the right to self-determination.
332
Yet it's the "right wing" countries that have higher birth rates. The traditional family that subordinates women, believes raising a family is a religious duty and needs children to assure comfort in old age will out-produce a modern western family. Liberal family benefits may be a good thing, but don't expect them to be determinative of population growth.
2
Even if all the country’s women agreed to stay home and raise kids, there is no way one job per family would keep food on the table. That ship sailed 30 years ago.
9
In addition, they don't want a minimum wage and agree that we are paid too much. I don't see any reason for most couples to live on just one income.
"Female fertility begins significantly decreasing at age 32."
Fact Check: Male fertility also begins to decline in mid- to late-30s. How? Lower sperm count, lower sperm motility, defective sperm morphology, and DNA fragmentation.
What does this mean: Women whose partners are middle-aged (40 and beyond) are more likely to encounter difficulty getting pregnant, more likely to suffer miscarriages, and more likely to give birth to infants with birth defects.
Stop propagating the idea that age-related declines in fertility is only a "woman's issue".
For more info, see these articles that summarize the medical literature on male and female fertility:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201207/it-s-not-ju...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201402/children-bo...
510
Furthermore, the article they link to is a statement from the American College of Obstetricians, saying that older infertile women shouldn't wait longer than six months to try fertility methods. No one has ever really measured the fertility of modern American women over 32 who aren't seeking fertility treatment.
13
I am happy that me and my wife got married in our 30s and had time to think through the consequences of having kids. I literally think it is impossible to give 100% to your marriage and your kids. We prefer to have life partners as, from what I have seen, it is hard to essentially put your marriage on hold for 18-30 years and then pick it back up right where you left it.
36
??? And at what point in life do you look back and count the percentages of yourself that you should have applied to something more meaningful? Kids are part of the fabric of marriage not a stray thread that needs to be clipped. You don't put anything on hold when you have kids. You adapt. You learn. You cry. You hug. You live. And near the end, if you are really lucky, you have grand kids to cherish. Life ain't no still pond. It's a raucous river.
20
MYOB (Mind your own business) is always a good idea. Just because you think kids enhance a marriage does not mean everyone else does. Scolding people who made a different choice is not appropriate. Not everyone wants or needs to be a parent, nor should they.
8
I am a parent of a lovely child and I completely agree with Scottie!
It seems that lack of community support wasn't one of the questions. That's a big one for me, partly because I'd be expecting another c-section recovery, but afterwards as well. Finding ourselves so isolated changed my orientation. And I live in a place where there's a lot of support from the government, but this doesn't include childcare.
18
Women do have more options and are having fewer babies as a result. In and of itself that is enough for some people to demand an end to many of the options that women have embraced. Fewer births mean changing demographics. Some people perceive the idea that white people are losing majority (>50%) as a threat. An unstated result of fewer births is that a significant group of people wants to remove some of those options so that more babies will be born, more people will remain impoverished, and the existing political structure will remain in place.
“ Whether the young generation will catch up later is not certain,” he said, “but will depend on their capacity to combine work and family.” - Olivier Thevenon, an economist studying child and family policies at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
It will also depend on having the option of controlling family size.
11
There’s no guarantee that having a child means built in old age care so we need to stop propaging that fallacy
And as someone else said— why do women need a reason to not have children? And why don’t we stop asking them? And let’s hear from more childless men.
169
I've more often seen "dead beat" adult children who drain their parents' time and resources, disabled adult children who have the parents worrying who will care for the *adult kids* once they die, and parents who can't enjoy a leisured retirement because they are providing full-time, free child care.
Sure, there are wonderful, caring adult children who do well by their elderly parents, but it's not a guarantee, especially with today's smaller families.
17
...let’s hear from more childless men...
------- my first wife asked me why i wanted a child or children.
i pondered that i was spending a year in europe, working in mexico, drinking a lot of wine, smoking dope and riding a motorcycle.
the doc doing my vasectomy gave me a tranq and a shot of bourbon. my wife watched the operation . . .
now i'm a millionaire a couple times over.
i've NEVER regretted not having kids . . .
Big
16
The data revolution has changed the social relationship dynamic. Who has time for a baby when my 'smart' phone demands all my energy and focus?
7
I have one child that just graduated from school. He is now starting his first job in a major city and will have to spend 53% of his income on rent. He doesn't have high student debt and that is really saving his behind right now. If not for that he would be in big trouble financially which would take him YEARS to get out of. He also drives a old car and doesn't have credit card debt (yet). His goal when I left him in his new home this weekend was "I want to have enough of a cushion to not live paycheck to paycheck but I know that I will probably never be able to retire". This is his reality at 21. Kids and a family are the last thing on his mind because he will be too busy hustling to make his own way. At this point I'm glad I only had one kid that grew up in a analog world (at least for some time). I can't imagine how expensive it is to raise kids now. Daycare in the early 2000's was expensive!!
101
"Women face another economic obstacle: Their careers can stall when they become mothers."
Becoming a mother (and a father) is a fork in the road. Either way you go is your vision of how to raise a family. If you have good role models (successful family raisers), you might model your decision based on that. If you don't, you take a different path. A "stalled career" may look a little different when you hope to retire from it.
6
"Americans are having fewer babies. At first, researchers thought the declining fertility rate was because of the recession, but it kept falling even as the economy recovered."
The elite truly have no idea what's going on down here on the ground.
The Labor Force Participation Rate for the 16-34 age range since 1948 has declined rapidly since 2000. Approximately 80% of the public has not seen the benefits of the alleged "recovery". http://news.mit.edu/2017/america-economy-decline-middle-class-0313
101
Infertility. Many are not having children yet didn't choose childlessness. Despite advances in infertility treatments, I think that infertility is on the rise.
5
It has always struck me how those political quarters that idealize 'The Family' as some universal truth have no understanding how stable procreating family life depends on policies that they deride as 'socialist'. As mentioned these include, pronatalist day care and maternity and paternity leaves, high levels of unionization that resulted in good pay and job security, and a general belief that government is willing and capable of solving existential threats, whether it is the threat of the 'Eastern Bloc' or climate change.
Current government looks dysfunctional and actively interested in laying the groundwork for a future plutocracy, while attempting at every turn to undermine the already inadequate health care that some Americans depend upon. For many, incomes are stagnant, jobs are precarious, debt levels are high, day care is unaffordable, and if you are prone to worry, there is no end of plausible even rational future climate heated dystopian scenarios. Macro indicators of economic health may look good, but conceal the quality of employment among those stuck in low-pay precarious, or multiple part-time work.
If you are at least middle class, some of your financial security may come from the health of financial markets, but clearly the S&P rate of return has nothing to do with whether the average American working-class couple can have a kid.
243
Excellent comment. You are dead right.
11
Suppose we had child care for free. We had healthcare for deliveries and child's health. We had guaranteed school for all . We had reasonable assured retirement. We had financial support for up to 3 children per family. We got serious about affordable housing. These things are available in many countries. We get more military spending and tax cuts for the rich.
Vote in November. Mean while our working population is decreasing . less workers less SS funding. less GDP, less revenue.
279
@RichardHead. The services you want to give out for free cost money. Where do you propose the money comes from to buy those services?
"These things are available in many countries."
Are you willing to pay a 20% VAT and close to 50% of your income in taxes? Then we can have those things too.
3