|
Maybe just adapt to a better reality
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller * The setup…
* From the editorial…
Really? That editorial board has preached austerity since it was founded. Sit the heck down. * As I’ve pointed out before, the actual numbers reveal something that almost nobody ever wants to talk about. Live birth rates for girls aged 15-19 plunged by 67 percent between 2005 and 2023. And live birth rates for college-age women dropped by 46 percent during the same time period…  I can’t imagine anyone wanting to jack up the birthrate for teen girls. Yuck. And it’s wholly understandable why college-age women would be putting off pregnancies. * You can’t just snap your fingers and bring back the “good old days,” which weren’t, it turns out, all that “good” because our birthrate growth was wholly dependent on teen girls and young women who were foregoing their education and career dreams. By all means, find the resources to make parents’ lives easier. But also, maybe just learn to adapt to what appears to be an improved reality for women.
|
- RNUG - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:28 am:
FWIW … this is primarily a first world problem. Birth rates need to be around 2.1 to maintain populations.
There were concerns about overpopulation and movements for couples to have only one child. The trends were observed / predicted decades back.
Among others, Mark Steyn highlighted it as a demographics issue in his 2006 book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.
To oversimplify and summarize, overcoming declining birth rates in America requires primarily more legal immigration.
- Politically_Illinois - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:28 am:
Thank you for injecting some facts and data into a conversation that is often just idle speculation about what other people are doing and thinking. Often to harsh judgement of young women.
If I wanted to be harsher, I would speculate to say that the reason “pro-natalists” ignore this info is because they either implicitly or explicitly think that teen pregnancy is just fine and that trading children in your early 20s for college is a bad thing. But that’s just speculating.
One other thing I’d like to add is that many welfare programs for families and children, while excellent at reducing poverty and thus valuable, don’t move the needle on birth rates. Clearly, the opportunity cost of a child is the biggest cost ahead of potential child rearing costs.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:28 am:
The pro-natalists don’t WANT an improved reality for women.
- Steve Rogers - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:31 am:
Perhaps if we had an infrastructure that supports working mothers (and fathers) with daycare/preschool/care, then maybe families might choose to have children earlier.
- This is ridiculous - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:32 am:
Soccermom +1
Let’s just let women decide what’s best for them. Not everyone wants kids and there’s nothing wrong with that.
- ItsMillerTime - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:33 am:
Your right on the money Rich. Nordic countries have everything you could want as a parent. Universal health care, legally mandated parental leave, affordable child care etc. And their birth rates are still declining. Don’t get me wrong I want those things here but it’s not going to “fix” this “problem.”
The simple fact of the matter is that plenty of people know now they don’t need to have kids and don’t respond to pressure from family/culture/religion to have them. You can’t rewind the clock on that which is why places like Russia, South Korea, Japan have even worse birthrates then us despite placing more pressure on people to have kids then we do.
- Perrid - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:34 am:
I’d be perfectly happy if we could level off, have the fertility rate be right at replacement level. We’re actually below that right now, by a bit, which is you extrapolate that out to a few centuries would mean the end of the human race (gasp). That’s alarmist and almost certainly not going to happen, but I do think society would be better served with keeping the population steady and not actively declining (or growing fast, for that matter). And even that would require some societal changes.
- jolietj - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:40 am:
Educating women is a key difference between a developed and developing countries.
- Thomas Paine - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:42 am:
=== I can’t imagine anyone wanting to jack up the birthrate for teen girls. ===
The “tradwife” movement and tradwife social media influencers are definitely targeting teenage girls.
Once girls decide to go to college, they are off-course.
1% of Texas girls age 15-17 are married.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:42 am:
My great grandmother was married and delivered twins at age 15. I’m pretty happy that’s not going to be the case for my daughters.
- Jeb - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:44 am:
==and young women who were foregoing their education and career dreams.==
Bold statement. Maybe women wanted to have children during that period in history.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:47 am:
=factors in this debate, is that it’s become prohibitively expensive to start a family
Having raised three kids, I agree with this 100%. Housing is the largest cost for any household. One possible fix could be an increase in multi-generational housing (this was common post-World War II—both my parents’ families lived in multi-generational housing). Many societal and cultural tweaks are needed for this to become more common, but the trend is growing.
https://www.vox.com/24115808/multigenerational-housing-us-families-personal-finance
- Sterilized - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:48 am:
==Maybe women wanted to have children during that period in history==
“Wanted to” or had literally no other options?
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:48 am:
There seems to be a lot of folks upset with the amount of freedom we enjoy and the amount of responsibility we practice nowadays.
- Save Ferris - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:49 am:
Give the 20 somethings some credit. When they read people like Bill Gates say that within 10 years, AI will replace us and that humans won’t be needed “for most things,” they believe him. As noted, it’s massively expensive to have kids (my second of three finishes college on Friday). If today’s kids think there’s no place in tomorrow’s world for their kids, they just won’t have any.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 10:51 am:
=I can’t imagine anyone wanting to jack up the birthrate for teen girls. Yuck.=
Have you met the new presidential administration? Yuck x100 when it comes to their views on women and “their place”.
So many thoughts on this “issue” that really shouldn’t be an issue…
The conservatives are generally opposed to contraception and sex ed in public education. When I say “sex ed” I am talking about the old school stuff and the more progressive iterations. They don’t want any. I remember in college there was an outcry about free condoms available at the campus health service. So they are definitely not opposed to teen pregnancy.
On the other hand, the whole issue of having children is no ones business. Let women/families do as they see fit. Stay out of my bedroom (banned punctuation)
- Steve - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:05 am:
Car Seats as Contraception
“Since 1977, U.S. states have passed laws steadily raising the age for which a child must ride in a car safety seat. These laws significantly raise the cost of having a third child, as many regular-sized cars cannot fit three child seats in the back.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046
- Merica - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:08 am:
I don’t buy the “babies are expensive” line. Raising a kid is as expensive or as inexpensive as you desire it to be. Many people do everything second-hand. The biggest cost factor is child care when both parents work, and that is a real cost, at least for 5 years. I attribute the decline to fewer younger people wanting to put in the physical and mental effort needed to raise a child, and having a harder time finding a suitable partner who is also willing to put in a fair share of physical and mental effort.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:11 am:
===Car Seats as Contraception===
One certainly does not see families with 5 or more kids all that often anymore.
- Deep South Wind - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:19 am:
Progressive don’t actually wanna progress.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:21 am:
===I attribute the decline to fewer younger people wanting to put in the physical and mental effort needed===
Congrats, you failed to read the post.
- Mason County - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:28 am:
A lower population base will be good for the world and particularly those nations that achieve it.
It will particularly be of benefit for those of lower and middle incomes as it will make their lives easier and there will be less competition for jobs. Seems particularly relevant with the constant attention to AI and its impact on the work force.
The problems occur when the drop in demographics is too swift making for immediate imbalances that societies have difficult adjusting to. That is tricky. Much attention to Japan has received press and how they are going to handle it.
Much of this has to do with individual choice and that needs to be respected and not engineered.
Many pundits have referred to immigration as the answer. Maybe, but only if it imports those with needed skills and not just ‘numbers’of people.
- Norseman - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:31 am:
More kids because America is such a better place to live after MAGA. /s
Worries: cost of having the babies; lack of appropriate prenatal care; cost of feeding and housing them as govt. assistance is withdrawn so the rich can get tax cuts; cost of daycare; re-emergence of vaccine preventable diseases; kids being slaughtered in schools in our gun worshipping culture; book banning; conservative indoctrination; hate/discrimination if you belong to a marginal group …
I’m going to do my best to help my grandchildren through these concerns, to teach them about truth, decency and ethics, but other people don’t have that support structure.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:39 am:
=A lower population base will be good for the world and particularly those nations that achieve it=
Tell that to the The Social Security Administration.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:40 am:
===Maybe, but only if it imports those with needed skills===
But doesn’t that ignores the millions of immigrant descendants who’ve gone on to become hugely productive citizens?
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:42 am:
The tradwife people are taking their cue from the tobacco industry that realized you got to get em when they are young.
- TJ - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:02 pm:
On my dad’s side, my grandfather was a teamster and my grandmother was a telephone operator, two pretty decidedly unglamourous and not very high-paying jobs. They were able to afford a home in Oak Park, put both of their kids through college, were able to enjoy long and happy retirements, helped set up savings accounts for their grandchildren, and could afford expensive end of life care with money to spare thanks to their salaries, benefits, and pensions.
Meanwhile, I work for a commercial lender and my wife is an attorney downstate, and while we feel very comfortable economically I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that we’d be able to satisfy all of those aspects of our future with only one child.
So, a 1950s-1970s working class two-child household was ultimately in a better economic position than a 2020s upper middle-class household.
The new gilded age long-promoted by the Trib Ed Board has wrecked the chance for the family values lifestyle that they think is so damn important. Tax the rich already, it’s long past due after their decades of wealth theft.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:03 pm:
“By all means, find the resources to make parents’ lives easier”
Not happening in the Republican world of lower incomes, fewer benefits and no paid leave, less unionization, anti-gun regulation, anti-vax, anti-climate protection, cuts to government and all the rest. They want more angry and scared voters who create the above deficiencies and oppose those who try to rectify them.
- Mason County - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:32 pm:
= Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 11:40 am:
===Maybe, but only if it imports those with needed skills===
But doesn’t that ignores the millions of immigrant descendants who’ve gone on to become hugely productive citizens?=
Yes, but the counter reality is the millions who have caused much trouble for our citizenry. Nothing is absolute. So those types of arguments can go on and on and on.
Best to have an immigration policy that matches the immigrants skills with our needs rather than just a hopeful “we will see what happens. mentality.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:34 pm:
===millions who have caused much trouble for our citizenry===
Millions?
But, let’s get back to the post, please.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:39 pm:
- Best to have an immigration policy that matches the immigrants skills with our needs rather than just a hopeful “we will see what happens. mentality. -
For crying out loud, people learn new skills all the time.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:51 pm:
=====Maybe, but only if it imports those with needed skills===
We already have a “Public Charge” rule for legal immigrants.
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:53 pm:
Upon close examination, the phrase, “Good ole days” only ever applied to wealthy white men.
- Loop Lady - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:55 pm:
My son and his wife are both white collar professionals.
They have decided not to have children and I think
that’s their decision.
Not everyone is meant to be a parent.
As long as they’re productive members of society,
who cares?
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
The American dream remains a dream for too many…time for a new New Deal.
- OneMan - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 12:58 pm:
===I attribute the decline to fewer younger people wanting to put in the physical and mental effort needed===
Dang kids today are too lazy to have kids… Now get off my lawn.
- Irreverent - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 1:04 pm:
@Merica
Economic solipsism has gotten us this far after all, why not triple down?
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 1:06 pm:
“You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins” - Bob Dylan
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 3:31 pm:
The research has been very clear for decades: When women are educated, have autonomy, have access to quality healthcare, and can control their bodies, they choose to have fewer babies. This is for a variety of reasons that includes focusing family resources in a manner that helps ensure the success of those children. On top of that, endless growth on a finite planet is not possible. I would like to see less effort put into making women have more babies and more effort into supporting all the people we currently have.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 3:39 pm:
Just want to add that my husband’s family could afford to raise four kids in a house in Western Springs on a CPS teacher’s salary. Try doing that now.
- Odysseus - Tuesday, May 13, 25 @ 4:56 pm:
“So as U.S. policymakers try to gin up another baby boom, they should ask themselves: Are the conditions right for women to want to have more kids?”
We have so many people now that we are breaking the planet. A few decades below replacement birth rates will absolutely be a good thing.
Roughly 10% of men get vasectomies, and roughly 30% of women get hysterectomies. It would be nice to see parity in those numbers.