Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

econofact.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#161

Post by BobTheDestroyer »

kbrkbr wrote: post #154
throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

But why is this trend then not visible in Germany? All of what you say applies there too. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...

[flagged]

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#162

Post by kbrkbr »

kbrkbr wrote: post #154
throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

But why is this trend then not visible in Germany? All of what you say applies there too. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...

Here is a better chart to back this up. Data from France, UK, Germany and US:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

Seems pretty unique to US.

Thus I conclude that most of the speculation in this thread is not backed by the facts.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#163

Post by hanselot »

ChatGTP wrote: post #141
withinboredom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before having a child, it was something I thought about and my wife and I would occasionally discuss. Now my son asks, "How can you do this to me? You've screwed up our planet and there is nothing I can do for at least ten years," (direct quote after coming home from school yesterday -- he's 9). Our kids are worried about it, more so than our generation, that's for sure.

Man this must be hard on everyone. You and your son included.

[flagged]

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#164

Post by pjc50 »

lynx23 wrote: post #149
pjc50 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget all the reasons gay marriage had to be fought for; no matter how solid a relationship is, the external privileges of having that status recognized matter. (Also, few of the posters in this subthread are looking at the woman's side of the game theory)

I believe that seeking external recognition is only necessary when one is unsure and requires external validation to feel confident.

No, there are all sorts of very specific and sometimes tragic cases like "who is allowed at the bedside of their dying spouse in the hospital" where official recognition matters. The AIDS crisis produced a number of those incidents, but it's also happened to straight people as well that if you're not officially married you may find your partner's family having legal rights which you don't.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#165

Post by kbrkbr »

BobTheDestroyer wrote: post #161
kbrkbr wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is this trend then not visible in Germany? All of what you say applies there too. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...

[flagged]

To make that useful to the question you may want to show that this is different than in US, which sees also a lot of immigration. I added a comment that shows the numbers are also quite normal in UK and France. That should also be accounted for.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#166

Post by derbOac »

furyg3 wrote: post #41
wunderland wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If women push back childbirth to their 30s, fewer births with happen overall because quite simply fewer women will be able to conceive.

> in the United States during 2018-2020 (average), the highest fertility rates per 1,000 women were to women ages 20-29 (80.1), followed by women ages 30-39 (75.3) [...] Source: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=birth+r...

"...ages 40 and older (12.8)."

Part of the issue is the infertility cliff happens in the late 30s to mid 40s, so those age categories are a little wonky in terms of capturing the phenomenon.

Having bumped up against this myself, the problem in the US isn't that women are more often waiting until they are 32 to have kids, it's that they are waiting until they are 39.

The figure here illustrates it well:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/04/fertility-rat...

There seems to be a much bigger decline in births among younger than there is an increase in older, but if those women are delaying rather than abstaining completely, they'll run into infertility issues later if they wait late enough. There will be a certain number who intend to have more kids than they actually do.

I don't think this is all of it, as it doesn't address why women are increasingly forgoing children in prime fertility years. I also in general think it's part of a set of demographic trends that point to societal problems (stalling or declining life expectancy for one).

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#167

Post by Aeolos »

balfirevic wrote: post #147
Aeolos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked 10-12 hours a day throughout all of my working career (from 19yo onwards). This is in central Europe, and I'm not even the hardest worker around.

Do you just sleep, work, commute and do chores? That sounds dreadful to me.

I also have hobbies and a social life - but it has consequences.

Family and children are entirely 100% impossible in this lifestyle without a stay-at-home partner. And unlike previous generations, stay-at-home partners are no longer a thing.

(Edit: to make it clear, I am not making a judgement, nor wishing for a stay-at-home partner - I'm entirely in favour of everyone making their own choices in life.

I am just pointing out that younger generations are now living in a totally different environment from previous generations, where a stay-at-home wife was the default. Which is yet another component in the birth rate equation.)

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#168

Post by CalRobert »

gsich wrote: post #16
CalRobert wrote: post #10

Hopefully we can do this for the species as a whole and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population.

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

At what number would you consider it a problem?

For what it's worth, I would be delighted to live on a planet of 10 billion people who have found a way to live in a way that can persist for millenia, but we don't seem to have done so. Although, living in a well-insulated flat made with renewably-grown timber (a great carbon sink!) walking and biking distance from all of my daily needs where my meagre energy needs are met with 100% renewable energy (when I lived in San Diego I worked from home and our apartment's average load was 100 Watts so this can be done!) on a mostly-vegan diet and working 20 hours per week or less sounds pretty nice to me.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#169

Post by CalRobert »

louwrentius wrote: post #28
gsich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

Indeed and it has been a dog whistle for the eugenics crowd since the 70s. https://twitter.com/IfBooksPod/status/1603412908184309760?la...

I don't understand how my comment has anything to do with Eugenics.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#170

Post by CalRobert »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #80
gsich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

It actually is considering that the root cause of our environmental problems is human activity and that billions of people are still poor. For instance, when we're told we need to eat less meat, we'll it's not so much that meat production is a problem, it's that meat production for billions of people is a problem. So all the constraining measures we're seeing either being suggested or enforced "for the environment/cl…

Similarly, there are groups who encourage people to go vegetarian or vegan for the climate, which makes some sense, but considering how few people do so long-term we might be better served by encouraging people to treat beef, dairy, etc. as a treat (or at least not something you need 365 days a year) than forgoing these things completely.
Post reply on HN