US Birth Rates Plummet To 40-Year Low

dilettante

dilettante

Well-known Member
Location
Michigan
We're already seeing the fruits of an underpopulation policy in most of the west already. People don't seem to realize it has been happening here, instead seeing it as a policy failure in China or a failing social trend in Japan, South Korea, Canada, etc.

The impact now and in the short term is the diminishing pool of labor. But health and life care for a growing elder population is another serious concern.

The facts don't seem to matter to those culturally invested in the failed policies of the last 50 to 60 years. Those have nearly turned the urban female population into functionally infertile drones in hives serving corporate machines.


Things are even worse in much of Europe.
 

Since the Death of Roe, more and more YOUNG people have opted for Permanent Sterilization. Sickening that they feel forced to take this step. Tubal ligations are through the roof while more & more men are opting for vasectomy.
 
Like all first world nations, we are losing population. That's going to hurt our economy. Economic activity is linked to population size. The more people, the more people who want goods and services.
We are running out of people, who are working to keep our society operating.
We also have people, who are on our doorstep. and are willing to take any job what so ever. They are "illegals", but all we have to do is change a law, and that problem is solved. So, we will have vacant jobs filled, and the extra population will create and even bigger demand on goods and services- and a better economy.
 

With all the crazy sh*t going on in this country now (and it seems things are getting worse and worse), maybe it's a good thing that less babies are being born. If I was of reproductive age now, I would not bring a child into this world. Plus for those who are not of the "Haves", it's getting harder and harder to even exist these days, let alone be able to pay for raising a child (or children). It is estimated that as of this year, it would cost $306,924 to raise a child to age 17, considering inflation. I've seen it written that it almost doesn't pay for at least one of the parents of pre-schoolers to work because daycare is so expensive.
 
Last edited:
When things get tough the people near the bottom of the ladder always get hurt most though. Creating an underclass serving a dwindling population of "their betters" doing dirty jobs feels morally grey at best. At the same time it drags others already on a low rung down another one.

Some of these arguments feel like a lot of hand-waving and tale-spinning in an attempt to justify selfish policies and practices at the expense of society as a whole. They reek of elitist positions such as urbanormativity , nimbyism, karening, and white flight.

Until today I had no idea that critical rural theory was even a thing.
 
dilettante said:
We're already seeing the fruits of an underpopulation policy in most of the west already. People don't seem to realize it has been happening here, instead seeing it as a policy failure in China or a failing social trend in Japan, South Korea, Canada, etc.

The impact now and in the short term is the diminishing pool of labor. But health and life care for a growing elder population is another serious concern.

The facts don't seem to matter to those culturally invested in the failed policies of the last 50 to 60 years. Those have nearly turned the urban female population into functionally infertile drones in hives serving corporate machines.


Things are even worse in much of Europe.
Click to expand...

An over-reaction, imo. Public policy is based on current and future data. When the data changes, the policies will need to change. If there are less people, then so be it. Hell, there are too many people right now, so less is a step in the right direction!

But of course, data goes up and down, and economics play a large part. People don't have money right now, so affording a child is beyond some people. It's nothing to worry about at this time. Let me know in a 80 years, which is just over a normal lifespan of a newborn, and let's see where we are. There's nothing we can do right now, I'm passed it! :D
 
VaughanJB said:
An over-reaction, imo. Public policy is based on current and future data. When the data changes, the policies will need to change. If there are less people, then so be it. Hell, there are too many people right now, so less is a step in the right direction!

But of course, data goes up and down, and economics play a large part. People don't have money right now, so affording a child is beyond some people. It's nothing to worry about at this time. Let me know in a 80 years, which is just over a normal lifespan of a newborn, and let's see where we are. There's nothing we can do right now, I'm passed it! :D
Click to expand...
And people look around and see one problem after another and cry "What happened?"

A lot can be done. Obvious ones include readily available affordable child care. The path there is likely to de-corporatize it, push for it as an employee benefit, etc. Another might be de-urbanization and renormalizing single-income nuclear families along with rebalancing the economy away from so much dependence on low-income service jobs.

But the big one is to shift the culture away from the notion that adolescence should last well into your 30s.
 
it's probably cos we don't like children so much these days - too much t rouble - upbringing ; schooling ; and cost eetc
 
VaughanJB said:
An over-reaction, imo. Public policy is based on current and future data. When the data changes, the policies will need to change. If there are less people, then so be it. Hell, there are too many people right now, so less is a step in the right direction!

But of course, data goes up and down, and economics play a large part. People don't have money right now, so affording a child is beyond some people. It's nothing to worry about at this time. Let me know in a 80 years, which is just over a normal lifespan of a newborn, and let's see where we are. There's nothing we can do right now, I'm passed it! :D
Click to expand...
:) At some point we must let the chips fall where they may.
 
dilettante said:
A lot can be done. Obvious ones include readily available affordable child care. The path there is likely to de-corporatize it, push for it as an employee benefit, etc. Another might be de-urbanization and renormalizing single-income nuclear families along with rebalancing the economy away from so much dependence on low-income service jobs.
Click to expand...
My son has a two year old and a newborn. Cost of childcare? $400/week per child, every week of the year. Doesn't matter if his kids are there or not. Doesn't matter if the daycare center is closed for a holiday (that son & DIL's companies don't take) or the center is closed for its own vacations. Daycare gets paid either way. That's typical and the price is average.

$400 a week until the kids are in school. That's $400 X 52 weeks = $20,800 per year, per child X 5 years = $104,000 per child, or (assuming prices don't increase during the next five years), so nearly a quarter of a million dollars total for the two kids for daycare alone.

Americans have slowed down the number of children they're having? Ya' think?
 
davey said:
look at the stats not at the current outcomes - and its not just usa its all over the 'rich' world countries - its a phenomena called " we like the good life more than kids" - life is not just about kids its about us and fun too
Click to expand...
I'd argue the point but you speak the truth about people wanting the good life - and not wanting to pay taxes to support the cost of raising children.
 
dilettante said:
And people look around and see one problem after another and cry "What happened?"

A lot can be done. Obvious ones include readily available affordable child care. The path there is likely to de-corporatize it, push for it as an employee benefit, etc. Another might be de-urbanization and renormalizing single-income nuclear families along with rebalancing the economy away from so much dependence on low-income service jobs.

But the big one is to shift the culture away from the notion that adolescence should last well into your 30s.
Click to expand...

Or maybe, we shouldn't worry about change so much? Why should things always be as they were? Hell, I think given the number of single parent families, we need LESS children.
 
Pepper said:
Since the Death of Roe, more and more YOUNG people have opted for Permanent Sterilization. Sickening that they feel forced to take this step. Tubal ligations are through the roof while more & more men are opting for vasectomy.
Click to expand...
I think they're being ridiculous. There are so many very reliable forms of not-permanent birth control and if they should be that one in a thousand who gets pregnant with the IUD or whatever (or the one in 100,000 if he uses a condom as well) then they can have the baby and give it up for adoption. It's sad that people who desperately want to adopt can no longer find a baby.

I also think it's ridiculous to pay $400 a week in childcare when any expert in early child development will tell you how much better off pre-school age kids are staying at home with Mommy or Daddy over daycare. I stayed home with mine until he started first grade and even in the 1970's it was more economical to do that than to pay for daycare. My husband at the time was earning $3000 a year doing seasonal construction work. It was below poverty level even then but we got by.

We live around 80 years, what is so darn hard about staying home six of those years to raise your own children?
 
gruntlabor said:
What is so hard about not judging others so harshly? Never mind, I do it too --most of us do.
Click to expand...
I am not judgmental at all. I am often very critical, in a "this is what I would do, I think what this other person is doing is dumb" way, but I never judge. Judging isn't about "annoying things people do that I wish they wouldn't do." Judging is about the actual person. I might say something sarcastic about the other driver's car not having a turn signal, but I don't call him names or think he's a bad person.

Example, to stay on topic: Someone might decide to forgo birth control altogether and just have an abortion every couple of years like a woman I once worked with. I thought it was an expensive, painful and illogical choice, but I didn't think she was evil or going to go to hell for it the way one of our coworkers did. I try never to call a person evil. I never said I thought anyone was going to hell in my life. I know I can't see their soul, what they've been through, or whether or not they've repented. So I don't judge other ever. Might I criticize them? Sure. Not to their face where it would hurt their feelings, but I might say it on an internet message board.

But I'll refrain from giving my opinion on this as apparently only certain views are welcome.
 
Remy said:
I never had kids, no regrets. I don't think that everyone who didn't have kids is a drone.
Click to expand...
You reminded me about my mother's family. Raised in a family of five girls and one boy, two of the girls did not have any children and the rest of the siblings, including my mum, had just two each. It was not uncommon for men to remain bachelors for life. Economics was a big factor in limiting the number of children. It still is. So is a lack of support for parents.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top