16 percent of American women never have babies. In the article The Age That Women Have Babies: How a Gap Divides America that uses the word “women” 15 times (referring to women as a class) nowhere in the article is it clarified that 1 out of 8 women do not birth children. I would call that “breeder normative” bias erasing the existence of millions of women, rendering their lives and choices invisible.
Please, in the future, write headlines that accurately reflect reality, such as “The Age that Women Who Choose Parenthood Have Babies: How A Gap Divides Those Women.”
6
You are really using the wrong word when you say "Fertility Rates". You should be saying birth rates. Birth rates are down and partly due to fertility rates, a woman's ability to become pregnant.
You infer the true definition of fertility drop when you talk about a woman aging, which does relate to her fertility, but a woman putting off pregnancy through the means of birth control pills, abstinence, etc gives reason for lower birth rates.
Let's not lose track of the fact that the two most dramatic changes in a woman becoming pregnant have occurred in the last half century: birth control pills and abortion. These both affect a woman's ability to become pregnant (her fertility). After having used 'The Pill" or having had an abortion, a woman's ability to conceive is significantly negatively impacted. Research studies to confirm that this is so.
1
For all the people saying immigration will solve any future economic problems for the US, it will not solve the problem of worldwide population increase. Increasing immigration doesn't incentivize family planning measures in the places where people are immigrating from, some of which may have fertility rates far above those of the US. In addition to a donation to Planned Parenthood here, consider supporting groups like the United Nations Population Fund.
2
There is one statement by the experts that explains the low rate. They keep saying that the birthrate is the "lowest since the recession has rebounded". Problem is for many people of childbearing age the recession hasn't ended. As long as a large percentage of our population are saddled with student debt and low wages, this country should plan for reduced numbers of childbirths for many years to come.
5
Childless millennials here. Very happy to have two dogs and a niece and nephew to fulfill our "procreation instinct". Both of us being teachers, we might as well be called parents anyway. Looking around at others in my generation/friend group, around half of us aren't having kids (give or take). That's hardly cause for alarm. Having seen the low wages offered in the job market (even outside of education) and the rising costs of food and healthcare, I say let the population decline or stabilize and see the standard of living rise.
5
The costs of medical intervention to conceive cannot be underestimated - both financially, emotionally, and physically. I underwent multiple rounds of IVF because of my husband’s compromised fertility. Then he died unexpectedly. I went on to have one healthy baby - now a teenager. I’m lucky to have the support of two families and a well paying federal job, but the path to pregnancy was draining financially, physically, and emotionally. Women need to understand this before putting off childbearing. I was lucky to give birth at 40. Many are not. Would I do it again? It’s hard to imagine life without my child, but our life is hardly idyllic. If either one of us had health issues or if I had job insecurity, well, I’d rather not think about it.
5
The author seems confused. The 'completed fertility' statistic is defined by the author as the percentage of women who ever have a child. To convert this to a general fertility number, you have to multiply by the average number of children which these women have. If the age of bearing their first child has increased significantly, then it is most likely that the number of children they bear will decrease. Thus, the 'completed fertility' statistic is not contradicting the other birth rate statistics and we should not expect to see the overall fertility rates for the current generation to return to the rates of earlier generations.
The costs of survival are too high--mainly because of out of control real estate profiteering. After the hours of work and the commute required just to pay the bills, who has the energy and the time to be a decent parent?
6
Women are having children later in life, but is that a bad thing? Women are able to focus on themselves, their careers, and how to become financially stable, so when they do have families they are able to support them. The government has barely given any financial support for families who do not have a lot. So would you rather have more families who struggle to provide, or families who are able to support themselves? If the government was able to give struggling citizens at least a little more financial support, then women would feel more confident that their child would grow up in a financially stable home.
4
Having children later in life has significant benefits; career-wise, people can advance further, attain management positions, establish their value to employers, and earn income and wealth (including purchasing homes in strong school districts); personally, parents in their 40s are better informed decision makers who've had more time to reflect on their upbringing and think about how to raise a child. Ideally, mothers would wait until their 40s to have children.
Two downsides: 1) increased risk of infertility or birth defects, and 2) Parental age can be a problem when descendants grow up, must support their parents' elder care, and may not be able to rely on their help as grandparents.
Those are big downsides, although they may be mitigated by technology, and I hope they are. Children with major birth defects should not be denigrated; but taking care of a grown son who cannot live independently at age 75, 80, 85--that's rough.
7
yes, "terrible.." problem ? Sorry, what am I missing? In what universe is a stable population below current levels not a precondition to survival of the species?
12
If you want more children to be born, give women and families proper financial incentives to have them and be able to raise them in financial security and prosperity. Our government, especially under the GOP, has failed dismally to do this. The way NOT to do it is to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then raise a child they didn't want, often with little to no financial assistance or support network to provide affordable care (when the mother has to go back to work, if she works), etc. Government wants women to have children, but doesn't give a hoot about what happens once the kids are born. This ain't the Handmaiden's Tale, dudes.
10
Delay in having children may also be related to broad availability of contraception.
Surprising, no discussion of unplanned/unwarranted pregnancies in this time of governmental theocratic intrusion.
1
There's no question that the availability of long-acting contraceptives (e.g., IUDs and implants) has been a huge driver of the recent decrease in teen pregnancies.
1
I don't understand why the onus for repopulating society is all on the woman. This article only refers to women choosing to have children later. What about men? What about examples like Alex Baldwin, whose second wife is about 10 years older than his first child. Where is the article about the irresponsibility of geriatric paternity? These articles all focus on women and imply that women are desperate and infertile, especially when they are above the age of 35. Believe it or not, there are women who have never wanted to be pregnant, who think it's completely irrational and insane to pay thousands for invasive treatments or to selfishly have children without being married to the father. No one talks about how unfair it is to children who are born under these circumstances. And what about the millions of kids who are already born, who don't have homes? This hysteria over reproducing is baffling when the world is in an overpopulation crisis. Artificial conception shouldn't be a thing until every existing child can be adopted.
9
The verdict is not out yet in studies on any differences in adulthood on these frozen embryos born today. Has adoptions dropped also? Woman working is great but so is the much more quality time of a loving mom or perhaps loving dad. This may also explain the need for the family care leave act. Perhaps working from home is feasible or the types of jobs that allow children to travel along, like the military or movie star. Some children are very resilient to change.
1
Oh now the government is concerned about the “social safety net”? Please. It’s actually about having an endless supply of people, or fodder, for the military war machine, the consumer buy stuff machine and the low wage labor supply. Less people buy less stuff. Case in point - Manilla, the Philippines. There is a growing movement of women in the slums who want access to birth control. The numero uno block to this is the Catholic Church. So, the Catholic Church would prefer women and their multiple children to live in utter, abject poverty. Because they know all those children will be raised Catholic, who will perpetuate the same generational cycle of unquestioning sheep. The institutions may be different or perhaps not, but the end game is the same across the world. They need people to feed their machines - war, consumer, religion, debt. I for one refuse to bring any children into a world like this. I’m not a millenial, I’m a gen X-er. Go millenials! A big part of the resistance is not reproducing. Since we don’t have children sucking our time and energy, we child-less people can focus on changing and shifting the world. Your children will thank us.
9
I sure would not want to bring a child willingly into such a nation as ours is today. There is virtually no chance for a child born in a working class family to ever achieve the American dream. The system truly has been rigged in favor of the uber-rich and privileged. Oh sure, a few token "stars" and athletes are groomed to entertain the elites, while most of the rest of us are living in District 12.
11
As some stories here indicate, there's also an economic aspect to this trend. The fact that older, more educated, professional women are having babies suggests that--in a country where there's so little support for children and parents--waiting until you have a good salary and a good job is important.
13
I have three kids - born when I was 37, 41 and 44 with no fertility treatments. I am a lawyer and was only at a point in my career where I had enough control over my career and money and support to have children, in my mid-thirties. So really, no worries, the millennials will catch up, they are just as rational as we are.
12
Yes, millennials are just as rational, and that is why given the current prospects for a peaceful prosperous United States, they are deciding at very high rates NOT to have children, maybe never have them. Who wants to live in a world that resembles the original "Blade Runner" or "Soylent Green?"
7
The problem is that physically, it’s better to have a baby when you’re 20, but it’s better in every other way when you’re 40.
18
Listen to Paul Krugman
... you need to realize that America, like other advanced economies, is facing a double-barreled demographic challenge thanks to declining fertility....
Driving out young workers (The dreamers)who will pay into the system for many decades is a way to make these problems worse. Sept 8th 2017
10
It's called cutting off one's nose to spite one's racist face.
6
In the UK, the millennials have great difficulty in affording even a small house in order to set up a family home. They can't afford their own mortgage so they end up as tenants paying their landlord's mortgage instead. Many just continue living at home with mum and dad.
We're repeatedly told that our high immigration is not the reason for the shortage of homes, but incomers have for decades been given priority over the native population in the allocation of council houses. Just the sheer number of incomers have filled up the housing stock. New homes are now being built but without improved infrastructure, all causing concern to the existing areas where they're being built. No need to breed when the immigrants will often endure a low standard of living, or their clever ones will rise out of it. We can leave them to provide the country with its future workforce. In any case automation will cut jobs even for them as time passes.
I can't blame individuals or couples who decide to spend their hard-earned just on themselves when the support services for their children is gradually being eroded.
11
How precisely can the island that's the most aggressive colonizer in the history of the world complain about immigrants? Here's an idea... You send the immigrants back, and the world will return you all the English speaking immigrants you've sent out!! Have we got a deal, mate?
11
Give me a break. The NHS would cease to function without the many doctors, nurses, and other medical staff from overseas. There are also many underpaid immigrants in jobs that the UK-born population isn't willing to do (like taking care of the sick and elderly in nursing homes, etc.) They pay taxes and contribute to society in all sorts of ways. You receive many more benefits from immigration than you acknowledge.
The housing shortage in the UK has many factors, and singling out immigrants as the scapegoat is xenophobic nonsense. (And, yes, I have lived there).
5
Really now??The largest immigrant groups in the UK include Poles.
When did the UK colonise Poland, or Hungray??? or Northern China, given that the fastest growing immigrant group are Chinese,and they are not coming from Hong Kong!
In America, you are on your own if you have a child. In many states IVF services are not covered by insurance and its expensive to get the medical treatment during pregnancy and for birth even with so called good health insurance. In America we have no mandated paid family leave for mothers or fathers. If you are living pay check to pay check or even if you are doing okay, having a child is an extremely risky financial decision and its no surprise that fewer people are doing it.
Support parents and other care givers (elder care is another huge issue for many working women) or expect fertility rates to continue to drop.
11
Consider that global sperm counts in developed countries have fallen 50% in forty years time.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-sperm/sperm-count-falling-shar...
6
Well - with no government subsidized childcare for middle class people - having a child is an incredibly stressful and expensive endeavor - one which costs our household nearly all my post tax income. But - I keep working to keep my foot in the door and save for my retirement. But - yes - I get women my age choosing not to have children or delaying - as incredibly joyful as the babies are - without any government and very little societal support - it is extremely hard to support them with the basics - high quality preschool, healthcare, healthy food - and still make all the other ends meet.
16
That's right. Fix our problems at home, and don't rely on imported labor.
1
It seems to be related to increase of religious people (including women) and more women in general pursuing higher degrees in larger number these days due to various reasons. Now intelligence and higher degrees has less strong correlation as it used to have before. Higher degrees became more of a status symbol and time pass but with a possibility to get a more lucrative jobs these days- mainly started around early 1980s when Reagan destroyed American higher education sector by turning it just another for-profit industry.
2
why do women have children at all? Why no studies of the enormity of social pressures as for parenthood?
17
I asked myself that question many times even after having a couple of great kids. Late in life I still believe the same as I did in my young adult phase - don't have kids if you're poor. Not fair on you and not fair on them.
10
Any reduction in human breeding is cause for rejoicing. Now all we need is an appropriate overpopulation correction administered by Mother Nature.
17
My wife and I met in our early 30s, married in in our mid 30s, and struggled for just over four years until our greatest gift arrived at ages 41, me and 40, her. It was a greuling process-four miscarraiges, dashed hopes and thousands of dollars of fertility treatments. Being part of bringing a lfe into the world, and the unconditional Iove experienced makes the rest of life's accomplishments feel trivial.
It seems to me that people who say they dont want children because they like their freedom, enjoy their career, want to have fun, etc. implicitly believe their life will continue to be one big party. Once these people reach their 40s, that life isnt so fufilling and fun, especially when everyone around you has moved on and are enjoying thier families. It's then, you'll become invisible to society, and rue not having a family the rest of your life.
I empathize with those who struggle with fertility and their desire to start a family. As a person and couple who were a hair's breath away from not recieving life's most precious gift, I say don't wait until your mid/late 30s to do this, you're setting yourself up for heartbreak.
12
You're kidding, right? I don't have kids, many of my friends don't either. We are living full and meaningful lives (probably not in your eyes) that we are happy with. I'm certainly not invisible to society. I think we must have grown up with different dogmas and what makes you happy is not what makes everyone else happy.
17
And then are those of us who do not want to have children, has nothing to do with fun!
13
Yes, you have something of a point about possible regret later in a childfree life. I suspect the people who have definitely chosen no children, won't be afflicted with that too much. It might more affect those who left it a bit too late, or who just never got lucky. I still say don't have kids if you're poor.
9
Another, perhaps more telling, stat is the 100% increase in infertility in America in the past 34 years: 8% in 1982, but 16.7% in 2016. In crowded animal reserches, fertility drops and infertility rises with increased crowding until all further reproduction ceases. This phenomenon is driven by resource depletion and "population density stress". Elsewhere in the NYT today is an article on the collapse of a Caribou herd on an island in Lake Superior, and the author mistakenly blames 4 wolves. The article on this same island and its animals, appearing in National Geographic online, written by biologists, points out that the wolves don't eat Caribou but, rather, beaver. In any case, that population collapse has been seen many times in island mammals and has been proven to be the result of starvation, falling fertility, and finally hypoglycemic shock due to high stress hormone levels. Crowded human populations are experiencing the same phenomenon now. If the current trend continues exponentially and we continue to increase our populations, especially in urban centers, we may see the last live human birth in 2,102. Watch or read "The Children of Men" by P.D. James. She describes the aftermath of such an "omega" point. Stress R Us
13
Yep, we need a serious population reduction. It will hurt but must be done. The Ponzi scheme of having young workers pay for retirees is about to blow. We should plan for it rather than turning a blind eye on it.
5
Responses on US fertility re per capita environmental impact are off the point of this article. What needs change in the US is the latter, not the former. That low (1.3/4) female fertility throughout Europe & Japan spells disaster is demonstrated by simple math: those pop's would be more than *halved* in two pop. turnovers! Those govts need either to give incentives to higher fertility (as does France) or encourage immigration from more fertile countries. This is perfectly consistent with lowering rates on other continents (before global heating does).
3
Oh, yes - heaven forfend if we don't just reduce our population in a stable manner to a level that would allow coexistence with all other life forms. It is not a "disaster" for humans to reduce to population levels of say 200 years ago. We did just fine then, but without most of the destruction we commit now.
10
This doesn't reply to the article or to my argument, both in terms of stated current fertility rates in the US. The 1.3 rates through much of Europe and Japan are viewed with justified alarm there, for reasons one can easily calculate.
1
UK gets the mass immigration whether it needs it or not.
4
???: "If young women continue to decide not to have children, or if they struggle to do so after waiting too long, it could depress the economy and fray the safety net. There would be fewer workers to support retirees, and fewer family members to care for older people........" I don't understand this reasoning, except for the last part about fewer famiy members to care for older people. Immigration can easiy supply more workers! Or perhaps the author is afraid that immigration will dilute the number of "white" folks? From what I have seen as a public school teacher, the children of the hard scrabbling new immigrants are much more productive workers/ students--and grateful--than the privilledged scions of older, more established white parents so anxiously helicoptering their preciously few children.
8
no woman should feel that parenthood is a civil duty. Studies show that women are happiest when single regardless of age. Few societies accept happy childfree women.
21
7.6 billion people on the planet and apparently liberal, educated, secular types can still get worked up about a declining birthrate. When the resource wars of the 21st century get underway due to climate change and overconsumption, we'll look back on the bloodbaths of the 20th century with fond recognition. China's 1 child policy should be global until we have 1/10th the population we currently do. Because no matter how many movies Hollywood puts out about colonizing Mars, this is our one home.
16
I'm liberal, educated and secular and I have no problem whatsoever with a declining birth rate, and nobody who runs in my circle does either. Other than that part of your comment, I totally agree with it.
5
There are more cons than pros here... the costs alone are exponential. Historically, families lived locally allowing for a supportive village to help with child rearing. Nowadays, in our global economy, families are spread across the continent causing parents to rely on inefficient and expensive child care. Also, why do we feel the need to grow the population? Just to create more workers to drive the economy? No wonder why conservatives are trying to make abortion illegal and make contraceptives inaccessible... create more worker bees and raise those stocks!
17
Yes, the conservatives don't give a hang about the quality of life those children are born into, or whether their life is worth living if they're born into poverty. God must keep being provided with an increasing number of souls.
6
LOL, they came up with another thing we are "killing" as millenials. I am thirty years old, decided at thirteen I wouldn't have kids after reading E.O. Wilson's book about climate change. Every year it becomes more clear that no child should be condemned to the future we will have even under the best case scenarios.
19
oy,
As member of the boomer generation, which has been largely blamed for our ills, I empathize. A "younger" boomer, I have worried about our environmental impact since Jimmy Carter added solar panels to the White House (promptly removed by Reagan).
I do think many boomers have a "me first" attitude (unless it comes to their own children). I've no regrets about the decision to forego childbearing.
14
That book by E. O. Wilson has been discredited. Climate change is real, but won't have much effect on humanity. In the meantime, we are living much better than ever before, even if we waste much of the bounty on electronic toys.
What is with this blind obsession with infinite population growth, as if its a good thing? Is if its even possible? The number one factor bringing down fertility rates, is a dramatic decline in teen pregnancies. It should be obvious that fewer teen pregnancies are a BIG POSITIVE for our economy. Teen parents are more likely to drop out of school, derail their careers, and be single parents.
19
As humans plague the earth like locusts,celebrate the diminishing birthrate.
20
The U.S.A. population was around 200 million in 1990, its now over 300 million and heading to 400 million.
The idea that growing numbers is needed to sustain the country (for Medicare, SS) is called a Ponzi scheme. Clearly our population has reached a point where that is no longer sustainable from an environmental perspective; what with the earth’s population surpassing 7 billion.
We have squeezed out every bit of life we can from the natural world; we need to book months in advance to even have a chance to visit a national park.
The USA citizens have adapted to a more or less replacement level of fertility; that’s a good thing. Now if we could limit immigration, our country and the planet would all benefit. Use the money we spend on social services for the waves of the tired, the poor, the weary masses yearning to come over here to take care of ourselves SS, etc. life for us as individuals might get better; it certainly would be for the planet.
11
All valid points Ben. However correction: The US population was 200 million in 1970, and is about 330 million now.
7
And if the countries who export masses of their people were to cut their birthrate they wouldn't be dumping their huge surplus over (nowadays lots of) borders for someone else to provide for. And quality of life at home might improve.
5
Yes!!!!
In the short term, lower fertility will reduce our safety net. But long term, we need to reduce our population. Everything in this article is good news in my opinion. Good work, humans.
17
For those worried about these fertility rates, there are very easy fixes. Let's take a page from the Norwegians the president so admires: Higher wages for women and men, affordable health care policies and higher education, subsidized maternity leave and yes, affordable and good day care and pre school.
14
Except lower fertility rates are not a problem. With 7.6 billion people lower fertility is a necessity.
6
Apparently puppies and kittens aren’t good enough anymore. Obviously true fulfillment wasn’t found in all those pages of textbooks. At least textbooks could be resold.
Good time to point out that immigration is one way to counter the economic peril of falling fertility rates. But of course here in America we are obsessed with seeing a feature as a bug.
4
Except our country is overpopulated, and our population is still growing very fast from a historic perspective.
2
That's who tax breaks should be going to: people who opt to have *no* children. Rather, we practice subsidized breeding.
SAD.
(lol.)
15
The negative light in which this topic was approached bothers me. Why aren't women having babies? Perhaps because for once we're allowed to have things BESIDES babies that are also our own, like education, experiences, and careers. Maybe it's because women finally have access to birth control, so women who previously did not have control over how many babies they had can now say, no more. The declining birth rate to me is a good thing! This means choices and independence for women! Regarding the comment on Japan’s declining birthrate leading to worker shortages; if only we had a solution for that, like, oh, I don't know, IMMIGRATION. Also, on the question of "why are women waiting until they're older to have babies, what if they can't because of fertility issues at that age?" There are so many options now in medicine, we can freeze eggs for years, we can do in vitro fertilization, we have surrogates, and there's also adoption, which I think many women are feeling increasingly open to these days. Additionally, overpopulation is a looming worldwide crisis, so eventually we will need to slow our global birth rates. Birth rates also tend to drop as people rise out of poverty in general, traditionally because more children survive into adulthood, so why aren’t we seeing this as a good thing? To me, more women having children, but less children per woman means that women are able to achieve the lives they have chosen for themselves, and that’s a great thing.
49
Interesting topic. I would have liked more information on any causes of decreased fertility in women ( and men too) based on biology, rather than simple demographics. Are advanced fertility treatments balancing out true biological fertility issues? I am interested in that. I also read many of the comments. I am fully in support of women who have achieved in life in terms of "readiness" to have children. ( men too). When adults are not ready to have children--that is where we get into trouble. And readiness does not necessarily mean money or financial ability just to be clear.
I remain opposed to the government paying women who cannot support children past the first one or two. There are too many negatives for the woman and the children than there are positives in the long run. Obviously a controversial opinion and clearly my opinion only - but it is part of my daily experience for me.
18
I have always wanted a child, but not if I would be in a vulnerable situation (lack of higher ed, lack of life experience, shaky finances, etc). At 37, I finally have my life together (degrees, professional status/income, etc) and am emotionally mature. For what it's worth, I am down-to-earth, reasonably attractive, keep myself in shape, and have a zest for life. But now, the problem is a seemingly nonexistent pool of eligible and willing males to have children with. I've been in countless relationships, all with intelligent yet emotionally immature man-children who do not want to commit or settle down. I am pushing 40, my parents are getting up in age, and I'm close to either going it alone (as scary and controversial as it seems) or giving up on motherhood and continuing to simply enjoy my luxuriously selfish life. Male it easier for women like me to have children when we are biologically and emotionally ready, and problem solved.
30
Eliat, you sound like an amazing person, and you should do what makes you happy! You would make a great mom because you seem thoughtful and possess a great deal of wisdom. Many single mothers have raised wonderful happy children, and you would too.
7
This makes no sense: "Completed fertility — the share of women who give birth by the time they are 44 — peaked in the late 1970s, when baby boomers were having children. " I'm a baby boomer, born in '55. My babies were born in '98 and '00, when I was 42 and 44. Natural conceptions, not medically assisted. The idea that boomers were done procreating in the 70s is absurd.
9
As people get older, it becomes harder and harder form new friendships or maintain social relationships. This is especially true for childless people. Although children are expensive and time consuming to raise, they are well worth the effort later in life.
8
I would agree to a point. There are individuals among us with illnesses that prevent them from being good parents. This includes those who have diseases that are prevalent generation to generation, as well as those that have incurable diseases that make daily life a struggle.
6
This is not a universal truth. Many older persons are living alone with either their children scattered across the country or in total estrangement.
12
Are you suggesting people should bring people into the world because, otherwise, they won't have enough friends? I've heard a lot of selfish reasons for having children, but this one might be the big winner.
9
Articles re falling fertility rates routinely raise the issue of having enough young voters to support large population of retirees; this is a red herring as continued technological advances and mechanization of labor will balance this out (if not more than balance out the loss of young laborers). The world is overpoplulated by humans and declines in human fertility are beneficial.
23
Since when is giving birth, the statistical measure here, the same as “having a family”.
The two are used as synonyms in this article in a way that is disrespectful of the many other sorts of families people value.
15
"Fertility Rate" is an utterly confusing term. It implies, to me, the number of women who are actually "fertile or not". When they say "fertility is falling among Millennials" it makes it sound like there is a disease wiping out a generations ovaries or something.
It should be "Birthrate" or something more on point.
Just like a "Floppy Disc" wasn't floppy - it makes sense to those in the field but confuses us in articles like this.
9
I wonder how this might be affected by the current administration's attempt to re-implement draconian birth control and abortion laws. Government-induced population growth -- isn't that terrifying a la Margaret Atwood?
10
"Today, 55 percent of never-married women ages 40 to 44 have at least one child, up from 31 percent two decades ago, Pew found. "
As long as they have the financial means to raise them through college, more power to them.
"Now, 80 percent of women with professional degrees or doctorates have a child by the time they are 44, compared with 65 percent two decades ago"
These are the women well equipped to raise well educated and well balanced kids as productive members of society. Great news!
10
The birth rate going down is the best news for planet Earth. Nothing causes more damage to wildlife and ecosystems (extinctions, habitat loss, etc) than humans. due to our over-consumption of resources and innate greed. Polar bears are starving to death due to humans. There should be tax incentives for women to have 2 or less children.
Considering one child costs a parent over $200,000 to raise to independence by an older estimate, people are nuts to have children. Do children, humanity and the planet a favor and adopt a child if you need one. It is not expensive and can be done through local entities by getting to know pregnant teens. The best decisions I made were to never get married and have children...I can sleep, read, further my education, select jobs that suit me, live where I want to, travel, volunteer for many organizations, and live a guilt-free lifestyle. As for The Conservatives claiming the economy will collapse, old folks will not have a social security base to pay for them, and no one will take care of the old folks...it is each of our responsibility to take care of ourselves and not burden children to take care of us. Having children so they will "take care of you" is a very selfish and disturbing deed. We all need to help out family members on occasion, but "taking care of them" is an unfair burden.
32
A nice article, but surprising that it was only broken down by age and educational levels. What about income, racial and ethnic distribution?
9
My parents had me, their third and last child, when my Dad was 47 and my Mom was nearing 44. While my beloved Dad passed, younger, that had nothing to do with my birth, my beloved Mom, made it to a rather vigorous 101! No Dementia and no Alzheimer’s! My Mom admitted, even though she drove me mishugganah at times, that my being there, was one of the keys to her longevity! So ladies, don’t listen to the naysayers, and don’t sweat it! You’re welcome...
19
Less people! Excellent. Declining fertility and population are things to be cheered. We only get one planet.
30
When is the corresponding article coming out - the one that says "The U.S. Fertility Rate Is Down - and Fewer Men are Fathers?"
I'd love to see the stats on that one, especially if we define "father" as more than a mere baby daddy - someone who sticks around the helps raise the children.
22
Is encouraging child birth no matter what in order to finance benefits to seniors really a good idea?
When people who can't afford kids have them anyhow, they rely on public services from healthcare to food, housing and education. And despite all that, it's unsure if their kids would be productive members of society. Why don't we instead finance the seniors with that money and save the planet?
36
With a right wing party that is opposed to all sane, compassionate and humane policies and decline of social consciousness, I am definitely NOT encouraging my child to have children. And I am also thankful everyday that I have only one to worry about in an ever increasingly insecure world.
19
I have two kids and would love a third but it is just too expensive. My husband and I both work and make a decent living but cost of living here is out of control. Our salaries are not keeping up. I truly wish the world was still like when I grew up. My mom stayed home with us until I was 10. We had no trouble living on one salary for that time. That rarely happens now.
29
"I truly wish the world was still like when I grew up."
Well, I take your points about cost of living, but I'm extremely glad that my life is NOT like my grandmothers' in many respects. (For instance, I don't need my husband's permission to open a bank account).
1
Could some of it be, the perception of parenthood as not being a great and enjoyable experience? Could some of it be the lack of the social support network of our erratic and expensive health care system? How about literature and entertainment promulgating new norms for late pregnancy and exaggerating the difficulty of being parents? Or the emphasis on pets as if they were an adequate substitute (the millennials I know on FB seem to equate puppies and dogs with babies and children).
We had our two babies when we were 30 and 33 years old. At the time some of the folks in our circle were having theirs five years earlier. So their kids would be through with college while the parents were still in their 40's. Thus, if they hadn't bankrupted themselves with education costs, they would be ready to go onto their next adventures, and to share some of them with their adult children. and grandkids.
Perhaps young men and women don't see the possibility of still having an interesting life in their 40's and 50's and feel that they have to have the interesting life first, before they form their families... making sure that they get it all... me-llennials?
Having children was a wonderful experience in our early 30's. We were ready to make the financial sacrifices and there were plenty to be made. IMO the rest of the world will proceed with or without American babies being born. The human race will most likely survive. But that is another topic...
7
Ms Miller gets the implication wrong. Very wrong
Sher confuses fertility rate with population growth. The are NOT the same.
Thus sentences such as "it (the low fertility rate) could depress the economy and fray the safety net. There would be fewer workers to support retirees'' - are utter nonsense.
Here are the numbers
The current US population is 323.1 million
The U.S. Census Bureau presents annual projections for the growth of the U.S. population . By 2050, it is estimated that the American population will surpass 398 million.
That is an increase of 23.2% !
How can that be, if the US fertility rate is falling
"Over the next five decades, the U.S. immigrant population of 45 million is projected to grow to a record 78 million.9 The growth rate of 74% will be more than double that for the U.S.-born population (30%)."
=====
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-p...
PS: If you believe that
12
I think that this points up the fact that the work life we have for men is completely wrong for women. Yet, for some reason we keep on forcing women to fit into a trajectory that, if they want to have children, doesn't truly work. All this does is cost money, and add more risk to having children than necessary.
14
Many women simply don't want them.
27
"There are a lot of explanations for why people are waiting to have children: later marriage, student debt; stagnant wages...more education and improved job prospects for women; and a lack of [subsidies]."
you forgot about the many forms of reliable, widely used and cheap birth control. estrogen, progestin, condoms, IUDs, plan B, implants, rings,...it's not just your mother's pill and your grandmother's folk tales. even widespread knowledge about menstruation and fertility cycles on the internet is helpful to know how (when) not to get pregnant.
declining fertility rates--in part through wider use of birth control--later marriages and more educated women (and men) are worldwide trends.
15
Here’s another perspective I haven’t seen here—women who stay at home with their children are at great risk financially should their marriage not work out. Their were three divorces in my neighborhood at the same time. All three had a high schooler and a middle schooler (isn’t that interesting). Two of the three had been out of the work force for 15 years. Guess what that is like to have to jump back in after all those years. The husband’s income did not take a 15 year hit.
41
@MPE - This is really true and it's something all women should take into account if they decide to leave the workforce.
17
I don't understand why this is a concern at all. A decrease in population in the United States and everywhere else will help combat global warming. We are living on a seriously over populated planet.
The United States can always compensate for a decreasing native population by increasing immigration. There should not be any concern about funding an elderly population when so many people from all over the world want desperately to come to this country. It is a problem for Japan because Japan does not want to more immigrants.
31
One concern with low fertility is a growing difficulty financing social security and medicare. These programs are pay-as-go, meaning current expenses are being paid by current workers.
5
Which bring us right back to Katye's point - accepting more of the many many people who want to come and work here.
For all the people saying immigration will solve any future economic problems for the US, it will not solve the problem of worldwide population increase. Increasing immigration doesn't incentivize family planning measures in the places people are immigrating from, some of which may have fertility rates far over those of the US.
Surveys like this frame the issue in a way that misses the whole picture. Most women I know in their 30s desperately want to have children. It's the men who they are with who don't or want to wait, not understanding the biological realities. Why don't we ever discuss how men contribute to birth rates?
49
This is a great point but lets go deeper. Why are men shying away from families and children? Men look at the current landscape and see that the benefits of family and children may not outweigh the costs. What are the costs? If after trying to work hard and raise a family the wife decides she wants a divorce, she has a court system that will back her under almost any circumstance, and will allow her to continue her lifestyle while the man is forced out of his home yet be made by the law to financially support his ex-wife in such a manner that her lifestyle is not affected. Men are looking at marriage and family and not seeing a net gain.
22
Funny, I know 2 professional women with advanced degrees who are divorced & working in demanding, high stress jobs. They are supporting their well educated non-working ex husbands.......these women are also supporting their children. I think this explanation needs a deeper analysis.....
1
I don’t think that’s it, Joe. While there may be some men out there who are so afraid of divorce and are so afraid of the future specter of vindictive ex-wives that they refuse to consider marriage altogether, a lot of men today are simply immature. Making a commitment to a wife and child requires a degree of adult behavior that many of these men simply don’t want to assume. Now this certainly isn’t all men, but a good portion of this generation of men - and they’re in my age cohort - seems to need a great big push to do anything serious, relationship-wise.
Some of these guys, like Peter Pan, will never grow up, and others won’t be ready until they’re 45. That’s way too late, of course, for women their own age, not that they’ll consider them at that point anyway: these guys’ future wives/mothers of their children are probably in college right now. My uncle was in relationships for years before finally settling down at nearly 50. His wife was 35 and yes, they went on to have kids, something he wouldn’t have been able to do with a woman closer to his own age.
I suspect a sizable portion of today’s generation of 30-something women will not get the families they may so ardently desire, not because they’re ambivalent about kids or because they live and breathe their jobs, but because the guys simply won’t commit.
6
The article notes that, "policies like paid family leave and subsidized child care would make it possible for even more mothers to work." I wonder if there is any research on whether fathers assuming a more active role in child-rearing and household management would have any impact on the number of mothers who are able to work?
20
As an adoptive mother, I'm curious about how international adoption fits in here. Domestic adoption wouldn't affect the population, but international adoption does. Are the numbers too small to be significant?
5
The reality is that while things have improved over time, society is still not really set up to handle two working parents. My wife and I both work and have three kids. It is a daily struggle of juggling schedules, juggling kids being sick, one or the other spouse traveling or working late, etc., that my wife and I have to manage by ourselves. Unless you are really wealthy and can afford live in nannies (few people can) or your parents are willing to live with you and help raise them (few parents are), having kids is an almost impossibly difficult situation. If you do not like kids to begin with (unlike me), I can see a cost-benefit analysis coming out as "no kids" or "maybe letter" (which turns to never). It makes sense, and is a problem for society to tackle.
52
Amen, Mike. Parenting has never been easy, but the obstacles are higher and more numerous. I have no personal desire to have children, but watching everyone else my life struggle just to hold down a job and grow a family is disheartening; our country has failed parents.
26
Stop harassing immigrants and let them work, pay taxes and contribute to the social security base, purchase our goods and services like they always have and Voila! problem solved..
20
An economy that solely depends upon an ever expanding growth of little human consumers is wrong, especially for the health of the environment.
What is wrong with zero population growth?
There is not a lack of humans on this planet right now.
Too many immigrants to our country, both illegal and legal, are having way too many babies. This is a problem. They don't seem to care, it's not on their dime. Most middle class and above are wary about the costs of adding children due to the costs. There must be a two child cap for those on the dole. No more benefits after that amount.
17
Your heart is two sizes too small.
We will have a better and more productive citizenry if all children, including those whose parents are "on the dole" receive a good education, good food, clean water, and good healthcare. I am grateful for the immigrants who come here and share their families with us. Happy to have more.
Nothing is inherently wrong with zero population growth, but we're going into negative population growth and we're not designed for that. We will need to adapt for it and a cushion of time where it is more gradual is better.
12
What do you mean "it's not on their dime?" You are wrong on the facts. Immigrants have lower rates of public support recipiency than the native born.
7
@KM
Historically fertility decreases the more education women have. 2nd generation (immigrant) women have generally had lower fertility rates. So any predictions you may have are way off.
1
One of the biggest problems our culture faces is our leaders are only willing to make politically expedient, short-term decisions designed to solve currently urgent problems. That's why we hear warnings like, "We gotta have more babies to pay the taxes and fill our (low-paid) jobs."
No. We should be celebrating the possibility of an earth with fewer people on it!! And then finding intelligent, innovative solutions to what we now loudly whine are intractable problems. Instead, we cut funding for science and let our bridges and roads fall apart. We are shortsighted fools!
Women (married or unmarried) who are waiting until they are absolutely ready to devote time and resources to a child are doing the exact right thing. You can be sure those kids will arrive at kindergarten with every advantage. It is common for educated, professional women these days to announce that they will have a child when they are 35, married or not. More power to them.
41
As a man doing online dating, I see it like this:
Women in their 30's are holding out for the perfect guy/sperm donor: 6' 3", Ivy-educated, successful, handsome, white. Then, by the time they hit their 40's, they are willing to settle for a man who is short. I am short.
My guess is that fewer women used to have babies in their 40's because they having babies earlier (in their 30's) and now are waiting until their 40's because they have "higher" standards for a husband due to the miracle of online dating/social media. To me, women seem picker than they did 20 years ago. I think women are picker in the 21st C and this is why they ware waiting until their 40's to have a baby. In other words, I see this late motherhood phenomenon as the product of increased mate selectivity and not as the product of any other lifestyle choice(s). Online I se many women who are clearly 45 claiming to be 35 and looking for ideal men under 40. I think online dating has given women the idea that they will be desirable until they are seniors.
9
Mid-30s former online dater here: perhaps online dating has given men the idea that they will be desirable until they’re seniors, or that they’ll remain desirable to the opposite sex no matter how ridiculous they act or how rude and uncouth they are towards their potential dates.
In my last foray into the online dating world, I got few responses from guys my own age. They all wanted women who were, at the absolute oldest, 28. Who did I hear from? Goofball guys their 20s (one actually told me he wanted someone to “look after him”; I guess you qualify as mother material once you hit the 30-year mark), and men in their 50s and 60s who often had multiple children and seemed no more mature than the feckless college guys who could have been their sons. Throw in the guys who never wrote back, the genuine creeps of all ages, and the abominably rude 40 year old who couldn’t understand why I didn’t want to continue to get to know him following his hideous behavior, and it’s a wonder I continued on for as long as I did.
Look, online dating is at best a crapshoot and at worst a depressing joke. I don’t doubt that men have a difficult time out there, but women do as well. Not every woman is looking for a tall Ivy League white guy and if they are, that’s not a woman you want anyway. I’m not looking for that, and I don’t care if a guy is short. I just care if he’s nice. I found a lot of people online dating, but I didn’t find a whole lot of nice.
24
Studies of online dating show that men, on average, are more likely to care more about women's looks while women care more about intelligence. So , if you are short and smart, you're good to go!!
16
You didn't tell us how being a "richguy" instead of a "poorguy" affects any of that.
5
The way total fertility can decline while completed fertility is rising is that each woman, while more likely to have at least one child, is less likely to have more children. We are in an era when women have 1 or 2 children rather than 3 or more. That is good news for the planet and for women who get to have the experience of being a mother without overburdening the planet with multiple children who will grow up to become massive CO2 emitters.
18
I have a baby. It's called student loans.
-Sincerely, a typical Millennial
46
Yep. I would love to have kids, but I can't afford daycare costs on top of my massive student loans.
1
In that case, I have nearly three babies now. LOL, seriously 3 master's degrees and counting...
"The biggest increases have come from some groups who in the past were far less likely to have babies: highly educated women, those over 40, and women who have never been married."
Great. More unwed mothers...just what we need.
6
An educated older unwed mother is a much-preferred option over a "miserably wed" or "divorced when the kid is 2 and the mom is 20 years old, poor and ignorant" option.
18
When you are retired, collecting social security being paid into the system by workers raised by single moms, i bet you won't complain. The impact of family structure on children us complicated.
10
There's nothing magical about marriage that makes you a better parent. Plenty of women are unhappily married and have unhappy kids, and plenty of single moms are great parents. This isn't the Victorian era, where illegitimacy doomed you to a life of penury.
FYI, the biggest predictors of educational success in children are their mothers' income and education levels. Kids of single, college-educated mothers are highly likely to do well in life, and have a lot of advantages.
There was a report today on NHK World, the Japanese PBS in English, that 2/3s of that country's public elementary and secondary public schools will close by 2050 for lack of students. Already, districts are merging and students face increased travel distances. Rural villages are the hardest hit by the population decline and have even resorted to offering free vacant houses to those that would live there.
1
There are things that Japan could do to change things around, but they're very resistant for cultural reasons:
* Increase immigration and become more accepting of non-Japanese in society;
* Change the societal expectation that women will leave the workforce and do almost 100% of the child-rearing and household duties (while men do very little of it, work extremely long hours, and spend several late nights a week socializing with their work colleagues).
1
Any increase in fertility (especially Amercian) should not be greeted with optimism. Each baby is the ecological equivalent of a mini oil spill. There are many ways to build and maintain better social safety nets besides population growth. Since when are conservatives interested in social safety nets anyway?
24
I'm an older mom - 42 when I had my second child. My parents were both old too, so I have first-hand knowledge as to what will likely happen to my family. I am likely to die before my children have had a chance to finish out early adulthood. I don't expect to be a useful babysitting grandma, although I hope that it may happen.
Since so much childcare and general parenting knowhow is provided by grandparents, this will be a big hardship to all those kids of us older moms. I'm happy I have been able to provide a better level of financial and emotional support due to my age, but sad that I won't have as many years with my kids as younger parents.
38
Everything's a trade-off.
6
"If young women continue to decide not to have children, or if they struggle to do so after waiting too long, it could depress the economy and fray the safety net. There would be fewer workers to support retirees, and fewer family members to care for older people — problems faced by other countries with falling fertility, like Japan."
That is why we should be encouraging more immigrants, not persecuting them or scaring them away. If young women and their mates have determined that they are better off not having children (when they are young), they are not going to change their minds because demographers and economists think it would add to funding for social programs (that keep getting starved and raided by Republican politicians and their economic policy advisors).
22
How could this article neglect to mention the effect of fertility treatment advances; especially egg donation, oocyte cryopreservation, fertility preservation and the screening of IVF embryos for chromosomal abnormalities (preimplantation genetic screening PGS)? These technologies have had and will continue to have an enormous impact on "completed fertility" age 40-44 and beyond.
7
I'm not sure why it's not mentioned in the article (perhaps the data are limited?), but keep in mind that those technologies are available to the few and the privileged. I can't see insurance companies allowing more women to be covered for advanced fertility technologies in the current climate, and the out-of-pocket costs are WAY out of reach for most.
14
I think that's intentional and I believe it's because this article (and the linked study) is not about fertility and birth rates of women over 40. It's not saying that more women over the age of 40 are having babies. Rather, it's saying that more women of that age are still mothers to non-adult children, meaning they had their children later in life (instead of say their early 20s).
For example, the article says "86 percent of women ages 40 to 44 — near the end of their reproductive years — are mothers" but it does not say the women were actually IN their 40s when they became mothers.
Similarly "80 percent of women with professional degrees or doctorates have a child by the time they are 44." Again, this doesn't say the age of the mother(s) when the child was born.
Of course it stands to reason that one could delay motherhood (having a child) into their 40s and some of the women who are in that category had their child between the ages of 40 and 44. However, that was not the focus of this study.
6
This is great news! Fewer teenagers have kids, more educated women are having babies and it looks like a reasonable birthrate for an advanced economy. If the trend could be replicated for the entire planet, that would be real progress.
72
Good point!
A few considerations: no meaningful child leave policy; no faith in the health insurance industry and related costs that can bankrupt women; relentless sexual harassment and domestic violence; mean-spirited government as applies to women and children; income inequality; rising costs in urban areas where educated people like to live; poor public education system; shocking costs of higher education; and, overall disrespect for women and mothers aside from holiday platitudes -- is all this in the report?
80
Points to the reality, the only reason to have a male around for highly educated females, well paid, and independent, is to offer some predictability of an off spring.
9
As a millenial woman, I am just here to say that preaching about how my generation is ruining the birth rate is probably not gonna get us to have babies. Until climate change is addressed, the environment is protected, and public healthcare and childcare is no longer controversial, I think the last thing this planet needs is more white people. We have been poor stewards of our home.
I vowed a long time ago to never birth children. I married a man that felt the same way. I am happy to adopt and happier to be left out of the birth obsessed statistics of our social mother cult. I know I'm in good company.
114
Wow, that was a lot of anger. It's just a piece on demographics.
20
I'm with you. For me, its disheartening to see people ignore the ramifications of way too many humans on this planet and continue to put reproduction on a pedestal.
29
As the mother of a millennial, I can tell you that you are not alone. I would also add that in our current political climate, I would not choose to have a child either. I worry constantly about the kind of world I am leaving my son. If we remain on our present course, I would not think I am leaving the world better than how I found it. And that should embarrass us all.
23
The actual numbers are miniscule compared to illegal immigrants, don't make it appear to be a baby boom.
7
No more people are needed. We have defeated our enemy (nature) and are in the act of destroying it completely already. There are virtually no natural threats to human existence. The only threat we face is from ourselves. But then we are not we, and by that I mean we are not humans, but rather a bunch of tribes or cults.
33
The upside of all these statistics is that fewer teenagers are having kids. That is a very good thing!
43
"There would be fewer workers to support retirees..."
Uh, but the Times has story after story about how technology will mean we won't *need* as many workers. You can't have both: fewer workers are a problem; there are not enough workers. What conservatives really mean is that, with fewer workers, employers won't be able to underpay them (as much). Which to them is a bad thing, but to everyone else, is a good thing.
60
Of course, if we cut out the extreme ageism in the market place we would have a huge source of experienced reliable workers available to make up some of this supposed gap.
3
I was hoping to have a robot take care of me if we don’t die from the detriments of climate change first.
2
Another factor for older, first time mothers: fertility treatment is now much less likely to result in twins. When I went through treatment in 2002, I had three embryos implanted. I don;t think they do that anymore.
13
I believe you're correct, and that medical guidelines generally encourage the implantation of only one embryo at a time now with IVF. (Or two at most).
On the one hand, delayed childbirth can be a good thing - more educated and more financially stable mothers can sometimes be better parents.
On the other hand, delaying childbirth also means that grandparents have a much smaller and shortened role in children's lives. My kids are growing up knowing only one of their four grandparents - three are now deceased.
It's a difficult and often ignored trade-off!
52
It is a difficult trade-off, but older parenthood and the impact that has on the grandchild/grandparent relationship is not the only reason kids may not have their grandparents in their lives. Of the people I know who have children, only one child has both sets of grandparents nearby and healthy, with an added bonus being that one of the grandparents doesn't work and is able to assist with childcare. The rest of the kids have grandparents who live a great distance away (four hours or more), are still working full-time, are ill, or are, sadly, deceased. The grandparents who are ill/deceased aren't and weren't very elderly people. They're in their early 60s, and their own children are in their 30s. The father of one woman I know actually had to stop working due to his illness and was unable to travel to see the grandchildren during his treatments.
My point is that a shortened relationship with grandparents is not unique to older parenting. It happens to younger parents and their children all the time, and I think the key is making the best of it and encouraging the best relationship possible between grandparent and grandchild, to the extent that both are able.
15
Yes, it's definitely a situation where there's no clear "best" practice, and a lot of pros and cons on both sides.
I have a big age gap with my cousins-- my parents had me in their early 20s, whereas my aunts and uncles had their kids in their 30s and 40s. I was lucky to have a very close relationship with my grandparents growing up, but my younger cousins also had some important advantages from having more financially stable parents. (I like to think we all turned out pretty well, though!)
Articles like this ALWAYS frame things for educated working women as delaying by choice...and yeah, they mention fertility challenges, but really, it's a woman's choice to delay.
I'm 37, single, working and have a masters degree. I feel like I've been eager to have a partner and family since my mid-20's. I have a lot of friends in the same boat...and we all feel we had very little choice in the fact that we don't currently have families of our own. Beyond the choice to use birth control when we aren't with a partner we have decided to start a family with, it mostly hasn't been up to us. If we are eager, we often meet the wrong people, or have different life goals, OR stop meeting people at all b/c you "age out" when most of your peers are married...Then we get to the age when we consider going it alone, having a baby with a sperm donor, but then, you don't get paid maternity leave, or insurance won't cover fertility services or egg freezing, or you can't afford child care on one salary...
There have been significant shifts in society, in the role men/women play, expectations, and the wants/needs of both men and women. It's not as simple as saying women are choosing this...choosing to delay. There are many reasons, and an important one for many of us, is that we simply aren't meeting the right partners who also want these things. And it doesn't help that the society we live in doesn't support women to go it alone.
156
I just want to massively second this.... Of the single women I know in the 30-40 range, I can think of only a couple who actually don't want or are ambivalent about children. Most of us want relationships and families and some have even made significant life changes to try to make those things happen (ie, moving to a different city or not taking a promotion that will mean working too many hours). I think women in our generation got it by a combination of the recession and the fact that men can get enough sex to satisfy them without having to commit. It's so hurtful to have people say "women are choosing to not have children." Most women I know wouldn't describe it as a choice - more like a series of unfortunatel events.
145
Excellent comment!
"There are a lot of explanations for why people are waiting to have children: later marriage, student debt; stagnant wages; recovery from the recession; more education and improved job prospects for women; and a lack of support for families in which both parents work."
"Lack of suitable partner" should be added to the list of reasons women wait to have children. It is almost always overlooked as a variable and is probably not even included in the questionnaires. In the absence of a suitable partner all other variables are irrelevant (except for those women who choose to go it alone).
94
Ain't that the truth. I was 32 when I finally met a decent male. Married at 34, first kid at 35. Now I'm thinking about a last kid at 41. I was ready to get married and have kids at 23, but so few of the guys that age want to commit. I spent all of my twenties and early thirties in long relationships where I was trying to get the guy to commit, but he was always noncommittal. Women have to waste so much time in their twenties waiting, waiting, waiting. Now I won't see my grandchildren grow up.
30
The idea that human population must constantly increase is killing non-human life on Earth and is responsible for a sixth mass extinction happening right now. The human population needs to decline, especially in developed countries such as the U.S. We should learn how to run economies without constant population growth or humans will end up destroying everything.
163
Absolutely. We should spend more effort in figuring out how to build systems (to, say, take care of the aging well) with a shrinking population. If we let the population shrink naturally, it will be easier to adapt to climate change, and we'll have a better chance of preserving more of the genetic diversity of earth. Also, our descendants will have pretty darn good lives if they have great technologies, but there are fewer people using the resources.
34
7.6 billion humans and counting
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
We need sex education, free condoms, free IUD implants and free birth control pills for all before we dumb humans abort the planet.
67
@Enough Humans
Spot on, perhaps the only comment in here that gets it.
The planet's population is at 7.5+ billion, increasing annually at 80+ million (EG. pop. of Germany) is simply not sustainable. Planet wide fertility rate needs to be adjusted down to get a roughly 1% annual decrease in the population.
11
Our world is severely overpopulated, and all the economists can do is cry that we need more people. The orthodoxy of continuous growth is a recipe for disaster.
119
Women who are 40-44 planned their families in the late '90s? Really? They were in their early twenties then. Your point about access to assisted reproductive techniques wouldn't be relevant to twenty-somethings. Not sure what the point of this article was
5
A lower birth rate will NOT "depress the economy and fray the safety net." Some of the worst economies in the world are in high-birthrate countries. A bigger economy is not a stronger economy for the individuals involved! GOVERNMENTS like high birthrates because parents pay most of the enormous costs of child raising. Child raising reduces mothers' participation in the workforce, causes congestion, and contributes to climate change. This is all a big deal, since Americans have an enormous impact on the planet. Please quit suggesting that a high birthrate strengthens the economy - this is false.
96
Precisely! We're in an economy that's heading toward automation, meaning fewer jobs. Isn't AI supposed to fill in for humans?
How about writing articles about a minimum income for all instead of promoting the outdated idea that we need even more people to support our rabid capitalism?
18
They should figure out how they will make the robots pay taxes.
1
It's a twenty year project, a baby is.
And you are almost guaranteed to lose a load of income along the way.
You are penalized in your twenties and thirties, paid less, because you might have a child or two.
You are penalized when you actually have the child, because you can no longer be singularly devoted to the job.
You are penalized when you return to work, because you have not been completely submerged in work while you cared for your child.
The cost of motherhood is very high in the US.
No wonder, it is avoided.
198
Twenty year project? More like "life" in most cases.
60
Not a universal experience. I've been more motivated at work since having a child. Thus, promotion and a better salary. I don't work more hours, but I generally work better and more efficiently. (Except right now, when I'm writing this!).
4
I am not going to dispute much of what you say, but the years I spent, by choice, staying home to raise my two children are what I treasure most. No career or the money it would have brought can replace the joy of being with my children.
23
We have grossly over-populated this planet, with a carrying capacity of less than a billion. Rather than wasting space sensationalizing the lower birth rates, perhaps attention paid to reducing the world population, and more specifically that of the US; where each individual uses 20 times the resources of any other person, would merit attention. All else is insanity.
54
Reporting on this continues to ignore environmental impact and sustainability of endless increases in population growth. World population 4 billion in 1974; 5 billion in 1987; 6 billion in 1999; and well over 7.5 billion today! If back in the 1970's the US and United Nations had led the world in following China's lead with a one-child mandate (across the entire world) would anyone be talking about global warming today?
Instead, environmentalists seem to think it is fine to hurtle on to 8 billion; 9 billion; 10 billion, so long as we cover every remaining mountaintop with wind towers & every remaining open space meadow with solar panels. While mining lithium & copper for cell phone batteries for all 7+ billion! Why should Sierra Club care about 6th great extinction so long as hedge fund $ from population growth fanatics like David Gelbaum keeps flowing?
French Prime Minister Macron tried to point out this past summer that high birth rates in 3rd world have negative impact on political, economic and environmental stability (not to mention migrant pressures strengthening far right everywhere) and was attacked by media & others as "racist." We are all one human family but must transition world-wide to negative population growth. Narrative of raising the alarm over fertility rates should be exact opposite: applause for US declines & raise the alarm over high rates in 3rd world. Must transition to more sustainable economies everywhere.
54
NO, environmentalists worthy of the name thinking nothing of the kind. Years ago there was a huge schism in the Sierra Club between the people who dared not speak the name of overpopulation and those who wanted to encourage unlimited immigration in the name of some kind of imagined PC rightness. Guess who lost.
In this country we have slid radically backward , in large part because of the influence of the unscientific radical fundamentalist Christian in name only right.
Look back a couple decades and the US was a leader in combating population growth around the world. Nixon's population policy (he actually HAD a population policy) was far more advanced than anything since.
2
I know several women who have had trouble finding guys who actually want to be fathers. Douthat mentioned in a column that if guys prefer videogames and porn over parental duties then we might have some trouble...well that appears to be what's happening, at least to these women.
The guys are eager enough to date but not to take on a lifetime of parenting which is reasonable enough from an individual perspective but doesn't exactly bode well for society.
I wonder to what extent women having kids later in life is a result of guys not realizing they might want kids until they themselves are getting up their in years (and are maybe tired of their old hobbies like videogames).
44
Look at it this way.....at least you're weeding out all the selfish people from the gene pool.
11
We're all born selfish. While growing up we slowly learn to consider the needs of others, and marriage is in a sense the epitome of unselfishness. We are collectively failing to transmit this value to our children, and we are suffering the consequences.
1
AJ,
Bringing a child into a world that is ill equipped to sustain it is selfish.
Children with older mothers have more health problems. And child rearing is viewed as particularly rewarding by both parents, yet mothers do most of it.
It would seem that many mothers have and raise children largely for their own fulfillment and give lesser consideration for their children's well-being and that of their children's fathers.
3
It is flatly inaccurate to say that children with older mothers have more health problems. It depends on what types of health problems you are talking about. For some health concerns, yes there are more among older mothers - but it should be noted that male age matters even more for some issues like autism and some mental illnesses.
35
I'm really confused how we transition in a three sentence post from women doing most of the childrearing work to women being selfish and not thinking enough about the fathers.....
30
How, exactly, is taking on child-rearing duties not giving consideration to a child's father?
8
Here is where I draw the line. Absolutely nothing against this article, it is accurate and educational statistically. Nevertheless, it is fodder for our so-called Christian "Right" for more government interference when it relates to women's reproductive "real rights." We are walking on an ominous path when we even imply the need for more babies. It points to us women as mere objects to propagate our race, nothing more. Just baby-makers. I trust the Generation Xers, the Millennials, to know what is best not only for themselves but also for our environment, both socially and physically. I promote single parenthood, and I promote adoption which includes the brown and black skinned and the Middle Easterner. I would wager that more than the demise of our American society as it is, it is rather the fear of our ultra-conservative neighbors that Whites will become the minority. Tsk, tsk...
89
Agreed on all points. Makes you wonder how far in the future Handmaid's Tale is for us, right?
11
@Kathy Lollock No, this article is NOT "accurate" grammatically. Because it constantly refers to "women" as a class having babies, as though it's a given. Sixteen percent of women never give birth and many are child free by choice, like me. That's MILLIONS of women.
1
A total fertility rate of 1.84 places the US among a club of rich countries (including France, the UK and the Nordic Countries) where fertility is only a little below the level needed for longrun replacement. 1.84 is far higher than in most of the rest of the advanced world, where 1.4 or lower is the norm (e.g. Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy). 1.84 is nothing to get worried about;; indeed it is a cause for celebration compared with the ultra-low fertility in most rich countries.
19
Chris, thanks for expressing birthrate by these numbers, rather than the article's. In the predominantly Catholic countries of Italy, Spain, Portugal (acc to another NYT article) rate is 1.3. As to the 1.4, easy maths shows effect. Assume pop. of 2k, 1k of which is male, 1k fertile women. Multiply by rate of 1.4, result is 1,400/2=700 fertile women, which multiplied in turn by 1.4 yields 980/2=490 fertile women. Pop. halved in two complete replacements. And of course becoming increasingly old all the time. Disaster. Remedy? Govts encourage having children (as in France) or/and increase immigration of more fertile cohorts.
4
It is a perfectly adequate replacement rate, especially since we are a nation of immigrants.
Immigrants supplement the replacement rate.
But with each downturn in the economic cycle, anti-immigrant rhetoric increases.
We have had a decline in immigration since 2008.
Yet the anti-immigrant nonsense continues to be spouted from the White House and beyond.
The concern with the replacement rate is not that it is too low in absolute terms for the US, but rather that it is too low to Make America White Again.
But don't worry.
The frozen embroyo people have a plan for that.
11
Millennials can't afford to have children. We are 37 and have one child. We would like to have another but we can't afford to. My job doesn't offer paid maternity leave or short term disability. We are barely able to afford preschool for our son. When will public policy makers decide supporting and encouraging families is a priority?
160
They do now, and have for a long time -In France.
8
it wasnt any easier for Gen X-which at 37 you probably are a member of-yet somehow we figured it out. When you really want something, you make it happen regardless of economic challenges.
9
Jason- "When you really want something, you make it happen regardless of economic challenges."
I know plenty of Gen X and Gen Y folks (and older folks) who wanted kids, but weren't able to make it happen for various financial and practical reasons. Your sweeping statement is incorrect.
The idea that "everyone can do [X] if they just set their minds to it" usually bespeaks a lot of privilege and lack of understanding of other people's circumstances.
3
On strictly economic terms alone, we need to get serious about childcare and reforming the school system. It's impossible to have as many kids as you'd like, living in a household with two professionals, if preschool costs 30k per kid per year, and even once they're in shool you have to collect them at 3, and figure out what to do with them over the summer.
It's in the long term interest of the economy to fix this craziness, and it feels like something that liberals, family conservatives, and fiscal conservatives could get together on. And even, yes, anti-immigrant groups (though I hate their motives), because we're filling the fertility gap with immigrants right now.
57
A pro-natal policy is the worst thing possible for the future of the country and the earth. We have way too many humans on this earth now. The last thing we need to do is encourage more.
3
That top picture and caption are mind-boggling. Am I looking at a 25-year-old baby?
5
Why does the author perpetuate the notion that women who adopt are not mothers? Fertility measures giving birth, but motherhood does not require birthing. (Title: More Women Have Become Mothers--The percentage of women ages 40 to 44 who have ever given birth.)
43
As a lesbian who hopes to adopt someday, I was wondering the same thing. If my plans come true, will I not be included in these statistics? Are adoptive mothers not "mothers"?
12
This article is focusing on fertility. to include adoptive mothers would skew the statistics, as they are specifically looking at fertility.
Actually, I think it has more to do with how birth rate is calculated. Adopted children would then be counted twice and inflate the birth-rate above the actual numbers of children being born.
So it's really not about counting the number of mothers (biological or adoptive), per se, so much as calculating birth rate.
2
"Demographic experts and some conservatives have been sounding alarms about falling fertility rates. If young women continue to decide not to have children, or if they struggle to do so after waiting too long, it could depress the economy and fray the safety net. There would be fewer workers to support retirees, and fewer family members to care for older people — problems faced by other countries with falling fertility, like Japan. "
So, conservatives: still thinking accepting immigrants is a bad idea?
20
Yes, they do. Conservatives are sounding alarms because white people aren't having babies. Their solution is to outlaw abortion and get rid of birth control more US citizens have babies, not to increase immigration.
I think Paul Ryan actually said something about needing to get Americans (white people) to have more kids.
48
Keeping exploding the population -- what a great idea. And keep adding unlimited numbers of immigrants who then adopt our resource heavy lifestyle.
There is more than one way to ruin the earth apparently.
2