Why the Falling U.S. Birth Rates Are So Troubling

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

We’re becoming Europe. At least, that’s what a long line of U.S. birth-rate figures seems to being telling us. And that’s bad news for the future of the country.

New numbers released by the U.S. government on Tuesday show record-low birth rates in 2011: the general fertility rate (63.2 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) was the lowest ever recorded; the birth rate for teenagers ages 15 to 19 declined; birth rates for women ages 20 to 24 hit a record low; and rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women dipped. Some birth rates remained unchanged, like those of women in their late 40s. Only women ages 35 to 39 and 40 to 44 are more likely to have babies now than in the past.

(MORE: On the Great Lakes, a Dry Summer Slows a Recovering Shipping Industry)

The data are part of a broader post–financial crash trend. Every year since 2007, when the number of births in the U.S. hit 4.3 million, Americans have brought fewer babies into the world. Much of that has to do with the recession: Americans apparently decided that they couldn’t afford to have as many kids in an unstable economy, even if they were married.

Such declines are typical during economic crises. During the Great Depression, birth rates dropped significantly, and the same thing happened during the stagnation of the 1970s. “We’ve seen this previously throughout the last 100 years,” says Mark Mather, a demographer for the Population Reference Bureau. “Fertility rates drop in periods of economic stress.”

It appears that the decline in birth rates has at least begun to slow, likely reflecting the fact that Americans are feeling more confident about their economic future. The birth rate fell by 1% in 2011, as opposed to the 2% and 3% drops in prior years.

Even so, the trend toward fewer births is likely to continue over the long term, mirroring what’s been going on overseas for decades. “I would suspect that fertility rates over the long term would start to resemble those of Europe,” says Mather.

Europe’s birth rates have been declining for decades, especially in its most economically stable country. Germany’s rate — 1.36 children per woman — is the lowest in all of Europe and one of the lowest in the world. There were fewer German births in 2011 than at any other time recorded.

(MORE: The Worst Job in America)

Even before the euro crisis, experts were sounding the alarm over Europe’s gloomy demographic future. How is the continent supposed to take care of an aging population when its birth rates are pointing toward a shrinking workforce in the decades to come?

The U.S. rate hasn’t fallen to European levels yet. The birth rate of children per woman in the U.S. is about 1.9. But the downward trend will almost certainly force the U.S. to rethink how to financially support the elderly and fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, ongoing economic debates that will take on even more weight as the country ages.

Some experts are more optimistic about the latest figures. While birth rates have been sliding since 2007, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say they aren’t worried about a possible demographic time bomb. To keep the population stable, countries need to have a birth rate of about two children per woman, which is close to the current U.S. rate. One CDC official told the Associated Press, “We haven’t seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children.”

Unfortunately, it may not be a matter of whether families want to have children, but whether they can.

MORE: U.S. Birth Rates Hit Record Lows: Is It the Economy?

157 comments
iDuder
iDuder like.author.displayName 1 Like

I don't see why lower birth rates are bad... we can't even provide everyone here with a job to survive! Let alone more people coming in via birth and making the problem worse. We also don't have infinite resources of food and water, if anything it's best for humans to slow down with births for the long term survival of humanity. 

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@iDuderThere are plenty of resources to handle a world population of 10 Billion. We have Corporations in the way... Overpopulation is a myth, every barrier that alarmist have said would be a crisis point has been smashed though. 

syberburns
syberburns

@iDuder there is enough water in Lake Baikal in Russia to support the entire planet's water needs for 20 years...plus the lake is expanding as we speak. Corrupt governments don't want you to believe there is enough food, water or jobs...it's just not true. There is enough to go around. It's the people at the top that decide whether resources are made to be sustainable or not.

bddb
bddb

why is this troubling? Hope the trend continues.  I personally would atleast like a tax credit for choosing NOT 2 have children.  I wouldn't bat an eye if the world instituted a 2 baby max for all. Have two babies you get tube ties or vesectemony.  If that seems barbaric (altho, all things considered, i hardly consider it barbaric ), have more than two babies u get taxed per baby, altho the rich would have to pay a larger % tax so the policy wouldn't smack of eugenics. 

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@bddb  Overpopulation is a myth and you are not contributing to society so why should you desire of a tax break? You are likely very White as well, you don't deserve sh*t.

bddb
bddb

vasectomony, now that's funny

MuherezaKyamutetera
MuherezaKyamutetera like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Guys, be honest. If there over 9 million gay Americans, why are you alarmed that the rate of child births is declining? Josh Sanburn (the reporter) is being intellectually dishonest

BillyB
BillyB

Tell that to the Mexicans who have snuck in.  I routinely see the 25 year old mom pushes a stroller with 4 other kids in tow....

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@BillyB You have a problem with that? 10% of White women are not married to White men and that trend is growing. Men of Color want to have children (95%), this appeals to the majority of women. 

-Matthew ☺ Carr-
-Matthew ☺ Carr- like.author.displayName 1 Like

Meanwhile in Africa and India...

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@-Matthew ☺ Carr- India's birth rates have fallen as they experience growth. Africa is the youngest continent on earth. Revenge? Likely, look over your shoulder homie...

Jennifer Hulford
Jennifer Hulford like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

You must be high, Time magazine. This planet is so overpopulated it's killing itself. Every single pressing issue can be distilled down to too many people. Demographics? If this economy and society is wired to only work when we overpopulate, then we have some serious work to do. 

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Jennifer Hulford  Its not overpopulated, that's a myth. We have corporations in the way, we have enough resources for 10-13 billion but we may never reach that because as more women become highly educated, fewer will choose to have children or put career ahead of children.

ss99zz99ss
ss99zz99ss like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Jennifer Hulford Wait, weren't you Malthusian anti-human types with your overpopulation junk science telling us back in the 60s that mass famines would strike in the 70s and 80s?

joewp
joewp like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ss99zz99ss So you think that that world population can continue to grow unabated? Do you think he planet is infinite? At just 1% per year(where we are now), the human population will double in just 70 years. Do you really think the planet can support 14 billion people? You do? How about doubling in another 70 yeas to 28 billion? Want to keep going? In 2850 or so, there will be 1 person per square meter of dry land. 

Do you really think that's possible, or even desirable? 

 Malthus was right, and the longer we keep growing, the harder the resulting crash. The real anti-humans are the ones who promote higher population, because a crowded world results in less freedom and opportunity for ALL of us, and will inevitably result in a massive population crash with much suffering.

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@joewp @ss99zz99ss We have corporations that control resources. Take it out of their control and we can handle double the current population with ease... Overpopulation is a myth.

la catholic state
la catholic state

The price for abortion and contraception is going to be ......everything.  Even the future....and all your lands. 

God forgives.....Mother Nature doesn't!

Gregory Dittman
Gregory Dittman like.author.displayName 1 Like

There are far more reasons not to have children than to have children.  Some people don't want to pay the expense.  Only those in the top 20% in terms of wealth can even afford children as seen with the over 40 million on food stamps (most of those are children).  Those 20% tend to work and travel a lot so they would just be producing latch key kids.  Even the most perfect family can see economic problems for the child's future.  In 2027, Medicare is expected to go broke forcing higher payments, Social Security is expected to only give 75% of the promised payout, the national debt and state debts will get harder to ignore, regulations will get more strict etc.

Rumionemore
Rumionemore

Many  more educated women have decided that motherhood isn't so great - pregnancy, birth experience or raising the offspring. Children are often barriers to serious careers. Out-of-wedlock births have many negative associations, including their likely association with poverty for mom and child. The ideal is to bring into the world children who are wanted, planned for and can be sufficiently financially supported. (I know, I know - there's no "ideal" in this world.)

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Rumionemore Planned for? Sounds like another way to say Eugenics.... Nothing in life is ever fully planned for. That said, we don't take family life seriously, we play lip service too it. As somebody recently said, America is slowly becoming more like China and less like Europe.

JohnJGuy
JohnJGuy like.author.displayName 1 Like

A very complex, striking and thought provoking article...

...Although, a decline in the Birth Rate in periods of economic stress seems fairly self explanatory and obvious!

Billy Snipes
Billy Snipes like.author.displayName 1 Like

Declining birthrates is fine but the fact that less intelligent women tend to be more fertile remains an issue.

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Billy Snipes  Any less intelligent than your dumb ass? 

SammyPrado
SammyPrado

@AnthonyThomas  I see your comments and how you this world can handle 10+ billion people. If that's the case why am I still seeing commercials asking me to help feed the starving people in Africa? Africa cannot sustain the current growth trends. Why do you so many are clamoring to leave and immigrate to Europe and America? If it were not for western aid these countries would all starve. Its irresponsible to keep bringing into this world that you can't support. And the cold hard fact is that less intelligence means higher birth rates. Don't you think we need to educate women so they can make better decisions when it comes to planning a family?

arvay
arvay like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

A splendid development. We can adjust to temporary demographic dislocations. Not to 10 billion people on the planet.

sorentoft78
sorentoft78 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Good news, finally. We are already to many humans on this planet. make love not babies.

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@sorentoft78 Eugenics.... We have plenty of resources, you just don't wanna share the planet with a majority people of color.. Sucks to be you.

JeanClellandMorin
JeanClellandMorin like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

The human species has been mindlessly reproducing itself and destroying the planet. We would do better to pay attention to our daily habits and attempt to live healthy, productive lives in our old age. //  Jean Clelland-Morin

ABC
ABC

How's having lower teenage pregnancy such a bad thing ? WTF! I'm jumping for joy for the lower teenage pregnancy.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the lower birth rate is an positive indication that people are actually focusing on bettering their career and education, rather than popping out babies all day long.

zanclus
zanclus

@ABC It is, I agree (teenage pregnancy). This article is just a bunch of baby boomers whining that no one will pay for their diapers when they burn through their retirement savings and need the current working generation to pick up their slack.

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@zanclus Both of you jokers are idiots. Keep cheerleading, you taxes will go WAY up and the retirement age will get bumped to 70 or more. Have fun with that,  this BS about paying for your own retirement, funny. Renounce your SSI now.... I dare you. You won't, chicken sh*t White trash, figures. 

David Strayer
David Strayer like.author.displayName 1 Like

Just wait for the Republicans to outlaw contraception: the U.S. birth rate will shoot up.

zanclus
zanclus

@David Strayer Too late. My IUD is staying in till I'm 45, and they can't make me take it out.

Palladia
Palladia

They'll never be able to make it stick.  Too many people have been using contraception for too long, now.  Really dependable contraception has been available for about fifty years, now.  People who have used it are not going back.

bibleverse1
bibleverse1

This isnt a big deal. We have enough people to work and contribute.

Sophie Tesch
Sophie Tesch

Don't we encourage low birth rates in teenagers, in twenty year olds who are not financially established? Doesn't it say on the bumper stickers "If you can't pay to feed 'em don't breed 'em" So people listen and now there is a problem? The problem is not enough workers to fund the Social Security system and such things. Responsible leaders will need to start looking into that, however there will also be less competition for this generation. There will be more advanced technology to perhaps help with low skill tasks. It is difficult to say at this point whether this is an actual problem isn't it?

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon

With 7% unemployment we will not be running out of workers anytime soon.  And yes, automation, mechanization and robotics will also help to reduce some of the workload

TennisMom3
TennisMom3

Has the author of the article looked at how much it costs to have a baby?  Unless you are an indigent showing up at an Emergency Room, babies cost thousands of dollars.  No wonder couples are limiting the amount of children they have.  

keyser5632
keyser5632

I am disappointed with the pessimism of this writer.  California is running out of fresh water; over-population is a fundamental cause (not the only cause) of poverty and unemployment.  Yet the writer wants more population.  It's time for the populationists to start thinking.

Gregory Dittman
Gregory Dittman

The fresh water problem in California isn't the result of over population.  It's the result of agriculture which uses 29% of the water supply during a wet year and 52% of the water during a dry year while only being 1.5% of California's economy.

keyser5632
keyser5632

Dear Mr. Dittman,

Your response is, in itself, disappointing. Why do you suppose that agriculture is so large that it needs all the water that you refer to? Keyser5632

Palladia
Palladia

The thing is that California agriculture provides fresh vegetables to a huge part of the entire American population, which, by its growth, has raised the demand beyond what the water available to Calofornia as a whole can sustain.

Now, you were saying?

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Palladia There are already plans to desalinate the ocean water... Not an issue.

Jitoo Parekh
Jitoo Parekh

“Fertility rates drop in periods of economic stress.” No, it does not. Look at other Third World Countries. It Goes Up there. It is the Positive Thinking of People of USA and that Helps The Country.

 

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Jitoo Parekh Too many brown people having kids...

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon

Fertility rates are high in third world countries due to lack of education and lack of access to birth control.  Studies prove that more affluent women with more education seek to have less children.   During periods of economic stress in first world countries, as the author mentioned, fertility rates drop as people realize they cannot afford to raise additional children.

Ray Smith
Ray Smith like.author.displayName 1 Like

As

long as couples are having as many or as few kids as they want, the

overall population is not a problem - not for people who mind their own

business. But politicians don't mind their own business - they stick

their noses in your business and their hands in your pockets and now

they're poking into your wombs - they want you to have more kids because

they have already sold your future kids into slavery.

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon

Anyone who says that "as long as couples are having as many kids as they want, the overall population is not a problem" is delusional quite frankly.  You do realize that 200 species go extinct each day as a result of human activity right?  You realize that this in itself is a problem right?  

AnthonyThomas
AnthonyThomas

@Grant Harmon Not an issue stop putting poisons in the air and the water and you won't have a problem

Armando_Cedillo
Armando_Cedillo

What is so troubling about lower birthrates? With the world hurling hurtling passed the 7 billion mark and the US well over 300 million we need LESS people, not more. If as an American you want to live in a United States that has plenty of open spaces, drinkable water and sustainable development then you have a moral obligation to (a) not overbreed and (b) support effective enforcement of our immigration laws. 

thesafesurfer
thesafesurfer

Not another Malthusian claim that we need fewer people. Where do all these people that hate themselves come from. 

Earth to Armando you are a "people." Do we need fewer of you? 

Reading you post about "overbreeding" makes me think you are playing the game of life quite a few cards short of a full deck of 52. 

People don't breed Armando.  People have families FYI.

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Those of us that have enough foresight to see the environmental consequences of human overpopulation do not "hate themselves" as you claim.  In fact, you could argue that we love ourselves and our neighbors MORE because we are concerned about the future of our planet and wish for it to remain a healthy place to live for all species.  A little education into biodiversity and population dynamics might do you some good.

thesafesurfer
thesafesurfer

Another post that sees humans as a disease or virus harming the earth. 

It is surprising the sick minds of so many individuals in society. 

It's pretty evident why Hitler was able to find so many people to keep this fires burning in the ovens and bury the ashes of the dead. 

Some sick individuals that see human beings having families as as "overbreeding" and an "environmental threat" would sleep peacefully at night after participating in a genocide thinking in their demented minds that they did the "right thing." 

Palladia
Palladia

Newsflash, Mr. Surfer: it doesn't matter what term is used, the problem is overpopulation.  More children, whether born into "families" or just born, will require more resources.

And therein lies the problem.  People say, in mockery, that Malthus was wrong, as if we have already established that.  We may not have hit the limits of what this planet can sustain in terms of humanity yet - and actually, we may have hit the limit, but not gotten to the really bad stuff yet - but Malthus wasn't wrong.

In microbiology, there is a concept: lag, log, death.  A culture will grow slowly for a while, then it reproduces logrhythmically.  Then, it exhausts its medium, and the entire culture dies.  Is that what we want for humanity?  The same thing applies to us, just on a different scale.

When talking about Malthus, it would be well to apply "yet: " Malthus hasn't been proven right, YET.  There are all sorts of things which haven't happened YET. 

Palladia
Palladia like.author.displayName 1 Like

Malthus did not say it had already happened, he said that population increased geometrically and food supplies increased arithmetically, and that therefore the former would outstrip the latter at some time in the future.

If you look at the situation, you can easily see that at some point this will be true.  We cannot simply continue to reproduce without any concern for this happening, because there will be what happens to every population that exhausts its resources.

It would be better to control our numbers than to face the "controls" imposed by diminished resources.

thesafesurfer
thesafesurfer

The problem is total ignorance of some individuals. There is no overpopulation. Thomas Malthus claimed the earth was overpopulated three centuries ago when there were about 1 Billion people on the globe. 

The problem lies in the hubris of individuals who think they have the answers and can foretell the future and want to enact policies to act on their demented visions. 

They are simply "sick!" Just disgusting. 

Ray Smith
Ray Smith

 The United States will always have plenty of open space.  Just as they do now, people will continue to clump together into cities, because we NEED each other.   City real estate is thousands of times more expensive than wilderness land because when you live close to a lot of people you can easily trade with them, which magnifies your productivity thousands of times.

The ultimate resource is people.  Every mouth comes with a pair of hands and a brain.   The more people the better.

But if you really want to reduce the population, point out the person you want to eliminate first.  If it's a convicted murderer, fine by me.  But if it's an innocent baby, I suggest that you eliminate yourself instead.

18235
18235

the united states will never have plenty of USABLE open space---which is why coastal california homes might go for a million dollars an acre, while some home and an acre in much bigger california wasteland might go for 50,000 dollars.

THE LESS PEOPLE THE BETTER----just like 1960s usa was better when it had 100 million less people.

india and china isnt better, at one BILLION people.

people dont want to clump together in cities, cause the internet means you DONT NEED lots others....which is why people move from cities to the suburbs.

utah has too many open spaces, that why people in utah have the crazy idea of over population being good.

stop posting on the fake internet and only associate with people in person if you are sincere about being crowd-friendly.

Rumionemore
Rumionemore

Who said anything about eliminating innocent babies? If that's a reference to abortion, that's the decision of the person who's "with child." When men are willing and ableto go through nine months of pregnancy, the hell of childbirth and the key responsibility of raising the kid, speak out all you want about motherhood. My experience is that even if most men were able, they would not be willing

Palladia
Palladia

Population reduction should be done by prevention of births, not the killing of those already here.  Wars, plagues and so forth can take care of that, but it's doing it the hard way.

Contraception is the way to obviate the problem.

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon

Very typical alarmist reaction.  No one is suggesting that we eliminate people.   We need to increase education and access to birth control so that people can CHOOSE when to have babies.   A poor mother of 3 does herself and her community no favors by bringing an additional child into the world. 

Grant Harmon
Grant Harmon like.author.displayName 1 Like

Give it up safe surfer..  "poor mothers of three" is simply an example.  Would you seriously advise a mother of three that is struggling to provide for her family to have an additional child? Nazis were actually proponents of procreation.. for the fatherland!

thesafesurfer
thesafesurfer

So now "poor mothers of three" are the problem. Wow! No wonder the Nazis found not shortage of people willing to follow any orders they were given.