Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 15, 2019, 11:35:48 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Baby Bust: US births continue their decline
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Baby Bust: US births continue their decline  (Read 2075 times)
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,727


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2019, 02:22:29 pm »

Despite the decline in birthrates for some time now, there's been a steady increase in the number of foster care children

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport25.pdf

And even with a dropping abortion rate. This is really weird. Pregnancies, abortions, and births are falling and somehow this is happening.

Opioid crisis.  Meth-addicts don't make good parents.

They make loyal Republican voters though.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,161


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2019, 04:10:29 pm »

The geography of this does tend to mostly follow "stereotypes" - birth rates in "red states" in the Mountain West and Great Plains and higher than in New England or the West Coast.

But the way this was interpreted during the Bush Years - "Conservatives will win in the end because we have more babies and will outnumber you barren liberals," - turned out to be a fallacy.

This is because nobody in the United States is having enough children to even maintain their numbers, let alone increase them. In 2017, the only places in the US where fertility rate was above replacement rate were Utah, South Dakota, Guam and American Samoa.

So the story isn't places with high birthrates overtaking places with low birthrates. It's places with absolutely terrible birthrates making up for it with high domestic and foreign migration, and places with only modestly bad birthrates losing population anyway because nobody wants to live there.

Logged
Marxist-Gnosticist
Situationist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 616


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2019, 09:59:31 pm »

If this slump in fertility is generational (i.e., late X'er/Millennial families choosing to delay marriage/childbirth) couldn't this all sort itself out with higher birthrates among the 35-45 age cohort sometime in the near future?  Basically, the median age at first-marriage has been moving later faster than older couples are popping out kids?     

There is a reason women over 35 don't tend to have very many kids.

Anyway, this whole thing is only a problem within an economic system that demands perpetual expansion. Meanwhile, unending population growth causes ecological devastation. Socialism would solve this.

Socialism is the last thing that would solve this.

Why?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2019, 10:02:03 pm »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.
Logged
DINGO Joe stands on Sanchez
dingojoe
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,625
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2019, 02:03:57 am »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.

Aren't those retirement meccas?  I mean with the Boomers hitting 65 in droves you'd expect those to grow.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2019, 05:39:35 am »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.

Aren't those retirement meccas?  I mean with the Boomers hitting 65 in droves you'd expect those to grow.

Those two are (though Myrtle Beach's growth is probably more complex than just retirement). But the are other small metros that are growing due to non-retirement reasons. I doubt many retirees are moving to Midland or Odessa, TX, for example.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,467
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2019, 01:08:08 pm »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.

Aren't those retirement meccas?  I mean with the Boomers hitting 65 in droves you'd expect those to grow.

Those two are (though Myrtle Beach's growth is probably more complex than just retirement). But the are other small metros that are growing due to non-retirement reasons. I doubt many retirees are moving to Midland or Odessa, TX, for example.

Midland and Odessa have problematic long-term prospects for other reasons. Just ask West Virginia.

But, in any case, there are always going to be counterexamples in a sample of hundreds. Pointing to a few counterexamples to a clear overall trend isn't that helpful.
Logged
The Esophagus
HillGoose
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,923
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.87, S: -5.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2019, 02:31:10 pm »

Good, that probably means less kids have awful parents.
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,313
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2019, 03:15:52 pm »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.

Almost nothing in demographics is monolithic, there's going to be exceptions to everything.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2019, 03:55:54 pm »

I think this and nearly stagnant education levels are our two biggest long term problems. Both of these are a death knell for the smaller metros in this country

Smaller metros are not monolithic. Some (like The Villages and Myrtle Beach) are growing very fast. Some aren't.

Almost nothing in demographics is monolithic, there's going to be exceptions to everything.

Here, the exception is the rule, though. In general, small metros (however defined) are still growing. The very largest (NY/LA/Chicago) are slowing and/or losing population in the most recent trends. We’re not in the Great Recession any more (core cities generally grew earlier in the decade; some are no longer growing).

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-24/midsize-metro-areas-make-a-comeback-sort-of

There will be winners and losers among small metros in any demographic scenario - as there will be among large and mid-sized ones.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,776


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2019, 07:55:53 am »

If this slump in fertility is generational (i.e., late X'er/Millennial families choosing to delay marriage/childbirth) couldn't this all sort itself out with higher birthrates among the 35-45 age cohort sometime in the near future?  Basically, the median age at first-marriage has been moving later faster than older couples are popping out kids?     

There is a reason women over 35 don't tend to have very many kids.

Anyway, this whole thing is only a problem within an economic system that demands perpetual expansion. Meanwhile, unending population growth causes ecological devastation. Socialism would solve this.

Socialism is the last thing that would solve this.

Why?

The record in the USSR and Eastern Europe is that the environment has no value in socialist decisionmaking.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,727


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2019, 10:02:26 am »

If this slump in fertility is generational (i.e., late X'er/Millennial families choosing to delay marriage/childbirth) couldn't this all sort itself out with higher birthrates among the 35-45 age cohort sometime in the near future?  Basically, the median age at first-marriage has been moving later faster than older couples are popping out kids?     

There is a reason women over 35 don't tend to have very many kids.

Anyway, this whole thing is only a problem within an economic system that demands perpetual expansion. Meanwhile, unending population growth causes ecological devastation. Socialism would solve this.

Socialism is the last thing that would solve this.

Why?

The record in the USSR and Eastern Europe is that the environment has no value in socialist decisionmaking.
USSR does not = socialism, that was authoritarian communism.
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,393
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2019, 10:34:29 am »

All communist states in the Soviet influence followed a similar pattern of having around or just under 2 children for most of the cold war era.  They did not experience the baby boom to the same extent the capitalist west did...mostly this was thanks to access to abortion and widespread usage earlier than the west.  Many Soviet bloc nations had generous benefits for families with children so getting married early and having kids was not difficult and was seen as the norm, even for the highest educated.

Still, they all experienced fertility declines in the 60s and 70s like the west.  The best comparison is East and West Germany.  West Germany saw fertility rates rise from 2 after the war to 2.5 by the mid 1960s, then a rapid drop to 1.4 with minor fluctuations after that but staying around that level.  East Germany saw a jump upon its foundation to 2.4 and it stayed between 2.2 and 2.5 until the mid ‘60s but then dropped to 1.5 by the mid 70s.  Unlike the west, however, rates recovered somewhat to near 2 in the early 80s and settled back to 1.75 throughout the 80s.

After reunification the west remained constant while the east saw an incredible fall in fertility to 0.77 children per woman in 1994.  Rates have gradually recovered since then and slightly surpassed former west Germany since 2008.  The very small cohort of those born in the mid ‘90s has been referred to as “the Kink”.  Now they are set to be parents.  I think demolishing apartment blocks and returning large areas to green space as people consolidate back into the older city ceters will be the norm.  Much of the legacy of East Germany will be literally erased from the landscape.
Logged
R.P. McM
Full Member
***
Posts: 225
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2019, 05:10:36 pm »

Children of Men, here we come! What a nightmare. Especially for anyone who values scientific or artistic progress. Is it time to institute a franchise ceiling? A society dedicated to pampering the elderly or validating their prejudices/delusions has a rendezvous with ... decline. Look at Japan, look at what they've become since the roaring-80's. No thanks.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.00, S: 3.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2019, 08:57:24 pm »

Cataclysmic news. The government needs to implement policies to reverse this ASAP lest we fall into Japanese style stagflation. Our future economic success depends on population growth and this issue should be treated like the national emergency it is.
with automation it won't be bad.  we'll be fine with a lower population.
Logged
Interlocutor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 846


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2019, 01:31:03 am »


That typing style looks even worse with <4 letter words
Logged
Annatar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 263
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2019, 04:58:30 am »

Q1 data is out for US, the number of births per 1000 among women aged 15-44 dropped from 57.2 in Q1 2018 to 55.6, falling by 3% in Q1 2019 which is a new record low for the US. If fertility were to drop by 3% for the rest of the year, US fertility in 2019 would go down to 1.68 from 1.73 in 2018, first time it would have fallen below 1.7

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/natality-dashboard.htm#

Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,909
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2019, 10:11:54 am »

Q1 data is out for US, the number of births per 1000 among women aged 15-44 dropped from 57.2 in Q1 2018 to 55.6, falling by 3% in Q1 2019 which is a new record low for the US. If fertility were to drop by 3% for the rest of the year, US fertility in 2019 would go down to 1.68 from 1.73 in 2018, first time it would have fallen below 1.7

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/natality-dashboard.htm#

In Austria it is the same thing.

After births increased "by a lot" during 2015-16 (immigration wave from the Middle East/Africa*), they are now falling again.

http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/PeopleSociety/population/births/028950.html

In Q1, 2019 births are down 3.1% compared with Q1, 2018.

In Q2, 2019 births were down 2.6% compared with Q2, 2018.

Link to 1st half 2019 numbers

* births also increased among mothers with Austrian citizenship during these 2 years, so it was not exclusively because of immigration.
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,393
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2019, 11:21:00 am »

Q1 data is out for US, the number of births per 1000 among women aged 15-44 dropped from 57.2 in Q1 2018 to 55.6, falling by 3% in Q1 2019 which is a new record low for the US. If fertility were to drop by 3% for the rest of the year, US fertility in 2019 would go down to 1.68 from 1.73 in 2018, first time it would have fallen below 1.7

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/natality-dashboard.htm#

In Austria it is the same thing.

After births increased "by a lot" during 2015-16 (immigration wave from the Middle East/Africa*), they are now falling again.

http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/PeopleSociety/population/births/028950.html

In Q1, 2019 births are down 3.1% compared with Q1, 2018.

In Q2, 2019 births were down 2.6% compared with Q2, 2018.

Link to 1st half 2019 numbers

* births also increased among mothers with Austrian citizenship during these 2 years, so it was not exclusively because of immigration.
Austria is now seeing the early 90s cohort start families.  The rise the past few years among native born Austrians was just the catch-up effect of the of the late 70s-mid 80s crowd rushing to have children.  There was a big drop from 95,000 to 75,000 births between 1993-2001.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see births fall below 80,000 in the next 5 years.

The US is seeing a rapid fall in fertility rates as all women under 40 have seen big declines since the 2016 election.  I think there will be a jump after 2020 even if Trump wins.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC