Report Finds U.S. Birth Rate Has Dropped to Lowest Level Since 1920

[decocker 7,198]

babies create jobs?

wowza.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

babies create jobs?

wowza.

The US is a service economy. Less people spending money in this country means less profit. Also like has been pointed out on this thread the US needs X amount of tax payers to fund certain services like the SSA just for starters. You cut back on the population and you take a hit on tax dollars. The baby boomers are the ones who would suffer the most seeing how they are drawing SS atm.

[mawilson 2,133]

babies create jobs?

wowza.

They sure do. Babies constantly require new shіt - they are fuсking consumption machines.

[decocker 7,198]

The US is a service economy. Less people spending money in this country means less profit.

you brought up the lack of jobs and complained about the dream act - i assume in relation to the jobs these immigrants would be taking away from all the babies...

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You sure love pictures!

[decocker 7,198]

They sure do. Babies constantly require new shіt - they are fuсking consumption machines.

right on. and seems there's a trend of parents requiring assistance from the government to provide for their children.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rates_e.htm

I thought this was interesting in relation to the declining birth rates in Canada. It also discusses why it's happening, what the effects are, and possible interventions. I'm sure it's quite similar to the reasons why US birth rates have dropped also.

[Captain Oates 911]

I just drove from Seattle to Milwaukee and I can say that I saw no overpopulation problem.

When I left the motel each morning the GPS would say "Turn left in 537 miles"

I saw a few broncos and flat skunks but that was all

Wisconsin is about the same size as England and has 10% of its population. It is very fertile with miles of cultivatable land

I can understand people not wanting kids, what with paying for healthcare and college etc and the ever present threat of new laws to take over female bodies and to restrict abortion and run their lives according to the bible

Luckily, all my female relatives are in Europe so they are safe

[decocker 7,198]

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rates_e.htm

I thought this was interesting in relation to the declining birth rates in Canada. It also discusses why it's happening, what the effects are, and possible interventions. I'm sure it's quite similar to the reasons why US birth rates have dropped also.

i think women putting off having children to go to school and develop careers and then finding out it's 'too late' to get pregnant is a huge reason. until employers in the u.s. are more pliable to family leave/pay, etc..i don't expect this trend to change.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Like it or not, times have changed. In the olde days, having lots of children was a way to show prosperity, compliance with the wishes of the Lord, and a way to guarantee a prosperous retirement. Three, sometimes four generations lived under one roof and the young 'ones often helped out on the farm from early on.

Now that we have made the transition from an agricultural society through the industrial revolution to one that requires a solid education for anyone not wanting to flip burgers or trash cans for the rest of their lives, intelligent people have come to realize that raising a single child costs a projected $250,000, so having lots of children is not a way of prosperity anymore, not in compliance with a non-existing God in the non-existing heaven, and certainly not good policy for a prosperous retirement.

Smart people don't have children anymore, at least not several children; instead, they enjoy their lives, buy a home, and save for retirement early on.

In contrast . . . um . . . "some" people who oftentimes come from societies not so industrialized, have not caught up yet. Without wanting to generalize or stepping onto somebody's toes, just a few days ago I saw a Hispanic woman with 3 children holding her two hands, while she was pushing her baby cart across the sidewalk, while being knocked up again already. She probably was in her mid-to-late 20s. What chance do these children have in life? Will she have the $1,250,000 in savings to make sure they will get a great education, or does she and her husband hope that the children, once adults, will take care of them? I don't know.

So while the population in the industrialized nations declines, it still goes up in the third world. That implies that more and more children are being born into poverty, while those born in industrial nations, for the most part, can look forward to a "better" life.

As the president stated so properly, education is the great equalizer. It turns people away from religions and toward science, away from superstition and toward knowledge, and it helps them out of poverty, at least here in the United States and other industrialized nations. So if we want to stop the population explosion, we need to educate those who still live in the stone age or middle ages.

[james&olya 1,121]

When I say issue, I mean it on a purely theoretical level. It's not an issue in the sense of it being a problem, necessarily. It's an issue in the sense of it being a topic discussed.

Though, it might become a problem if the whole planet were to keep a trend of 1.59 children per woman. Clearly the population would dwindle to nothing. For a time, it might thwart overpopulation problems. In the long run (if applying the micro to the macro) it's a bad thing.

Visit China, India, Bangladesh, etc and see if you still feel a decline in population is a problem!!! It would take a he!! of a long time for a birth rate of 1.59/woman to get our population down to a reasonable and sustainable level and an extremely long 'run' before our survival as a species would even begin to be at any risk!! I am sure that future generations those many thousands of years in the future could find ways to adapt to prevent our extinction!!

Looking at some of the regional forums it looks like American men with foreign wives seem to be having a fair amount of children.

So when are you going to do your part??

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

So when are you going to do your part??

a baby kip! :dance: :dance:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The baby boomers are the ones who would suffer the most seeing how they are drawing SS atm.

Our benefits are guaranteed, even by the ones that would cut entitlements the most. It will be the following generations, those who were born after 1960, that will be most be affected by any changes in the programs. Old people vote, and there are more of us everyday, and we already have all the money, and most of us have paid off our mortgages, so we have little, or no housing payment to speak of, and we get all kinds of tax exemptions just for being old. And we get a one-time tax-free sale of our primary home, when we decide to buy that Class A Motorhome, or Fifth Wheel Trailer, to travel the country, spending our children's inheritance, or move into a leisure community, where we can live out our remaining days playing golf during the day, and having wild geriatric group sex in the evenings.

[bsd058 296]

Visit China, India, Bangladesh, etc and see if you still feel a decline in population is a problem!!! It would take a he!! of a long time for a birth rate of 1.59/woman to get our population down to a reasonable and sustainable level and an extremely long 'run' before our survival as a species would even begin to be at any risk!! I am sure that future generations those many thousands of years in the future could find ways to adapt to prevent our extinction!!

So when are you going to do your part??

It wouldn't take long. Just 2 generations of 1.59 babies/woman across the world (assuming # men =(approx) # women) would see a population decrease by 20% in the second generation.

By the third, you're seeing a decrease of about 34%.

Just think about it logically.

My wife and I are considering adoption, though.

Edited December 3, 2012 by bsd058