For the first time since the decade began, Americans are having fewer babies, and some experts are blaming the economy.
“It’s the recession,” said Andrew Hacker, a sociologist at Queens College of the City University of New York. “Children are the most expensive item in every family’s budget, especially given all the gear kids expect today. So it’s a good place to cut back when you’re uncertain about the future.”
In 2007, the number of births in the United States broke a 50-year-old record high, set during the baby boom. But last year, births began to decline nationwide, by nearly 2 percent, according to provisional figures released last week.
Those figures from the National Center for Health Statistics, indicate that births declined in all but 10 states in 2008 (most of them in a Northern belt where the recession was generally less severe) compared with the year before. Over all, 4,247,000 births were recorded in 2008, 68,000 fewer than the year before.
[…]
Early figures for 2009 appear to confirm the correlation with the recession. As more families were feeling the effects of layoffs and economic uncertainty, births decreased even faster.
[…]
“That’s what happened in the Great Depression,” Professor Coontz said, “and although in some periods since then, we have sometimes seen women decide to have a baby if they get laid off, that decision is usually only made if the husband is working and his job seems secure.
Perhaps the recession has accelerated the trend worldwide toward lower birthrates (in many developed nations)?
Most states have these “Financial Responsibility Laws”. It’s amusing that we take these so seriously for whatever reason they are designed for except when it’s regarding human life. No insurance? Pay up. Having an unsupportable baby, have a nice day.
Yes, I’m talking about the mother of three with absolutely no way to support a fourth, but there it is, pooching out from her mid-section while she pays for a weeks worth of groceries from the generosity of other taxpayers and the charitable donations of others.
Would we still be having children if we were presented a bill for $200,000, with an 18 year payment plan. At what point is non-support considered child endangerment.
and here I was thinking that it was women’s liberation. Silly me. I should attribute everything in life to one non-proven fact. (oh wait it was proven because name of college X was mentioned. NVM)
I don’t think it was the recession. In order for the birth rate to drop in 2008, there had to be less hanky panky in 2007. The economic outlook was “good” in 2007. The recession did not really become visible until 2008.
Something else was happening in 2007. What happened in 2007 that freaked everyone out?
I would think that high unemployment would lead to more kids since not working means you don’t have anything else to do but have sex.
Contrary to most movie presentations, people do not go into their bedrooms and purposely try to conceive. Although some couples might be trying to have a baby, that usually would include something along the lines of stopping birth control and seeing what happens.
Since married couples are familiar with each other, sex is usually more of an outlet than a totally prearranged romp. Losing one’s job, facing money woes, etc, will inhibit desires. In other words, depressed people just don’t want to get laid.
Cost of Jr: 200000 bones
Not having to pay someone to change your diapers when you’re decrepit? PRICELESS! A great reason to have kids is to have someone help you when you’re feeble. The cycle of life and all that.
Plus, it’s great for society. Unless it’s LibertyLovers jungle/society. That one should just die out.
Birth declines? Nothing to worry about with Obama in charge. His amnesty plans and open border policies will flood the USA with plenty of fertile young folks.
Before Social Security, if you wanted to survive in old age you had kids. Paying to raise them to adulthood was your “Social Security”. Now, people who don’t have kids get their Social Security paid for by other people’s kids. So it’s financially advantageous to not have kids — you get to keep all that money you would have spent on raising kids and still get your retirement paid for. Of course, if all of us do it, Social Security would collapse.
#8 jbenson2… you better hope he does, if you want enough people paying into SS when you’re collecting it.
#9, Phydeau,
So it’s financially advantageous to not have kids — you get to keep all that money you would have spent on raising kids and still get your retirement paid for.
And many a lonely Christmas dinner.
There is a joy that children and grandchildren bring to the world that can not be priced.
Watching YOUR kid get that home run, roll a bowling ball with two hands and actually knock down some pins, bring you breakfast in bed on your birthday / Mother’s Day / Father’s Day, . . .
Maybe you can buy some happiness with your retirement funds.
#11 I agree, Mr. Fusion… kids are great, I’m glad I’m a parent. It’s just interesting that since SS people who don’t like kids don’t have to have them, because SS takes care of them in their old age.
Which makes me wonder whether non-parents should pay more into SS, because they’re not helping to provide the next generation of taxpayers who will be paying their SS…
#12, We couldn’t have that. All those welfare mama’s wouldn’t get a check then.
11 Mr. Fusion
“Watching YOUR kid get that home run, roll a bowling ball with two hands and actually knock down some pins, bring you breakfast in bed on your birthday / Mother’s Day / Father’s Day, . . .”
*sniff* I’ve got something in my eye…
#12, Phydeau,
…non-parents should pay more into SS, …
Excellent point sir. I think those who don’t have children do so more because of ability (health) than lifestyle choice. For those who can’t have children, my heart goes out to them.
*
My kid had three HRs this season and led her team in hitting, RBIs, and on base%. One was a grand slam, another was a three run, and the third a two run. She also had two three run triples.
One of her finest moments was a solo triple play. Playing third, bases loaded, she caught a fly, tagged the base and then tagged the runner coming from second. That same afternoon the next level asked if she would play for them as they were short a player. In that game she got two hits on a squad held to just four hits and scored the two runs. She got two game balls in one day.
There ain’t no money that can pay for that! I am sure most parents would rather watch games like this than pay huge bucks to watch a pro team play. That $200,000 might just be a bargain
Uncle Dave, I think the phrase you are searching for is not baby un-boom but baby bust. Other than that, no comment.
13 LibertyLover
Your comment makes no sense with its reference. Why would a mother, on welfare or not, be referenced when discussing childless people?
#17, My bad. I misread the post.
18, LibertyLover
Ah. So your prejudices answered for you.
#19, In a civil society, an apology is usually accepted at face value without snide comments. Of course, we don’t live a civil society so your comment was expected before I wrote the post. Yet I wrote the post anyway.
Thanks for not letting me down.
21, 22 AlfredENewman
Old news. But, I guess you were busy praising Jebus all this time.
20, LibertyLover
“#19, In a civil society, an apology is usually accepted at face value without snide comments. Of course, we don’t live a civil society so your comment was expected before I wrote the post. Yet I wrote the post anyway.”
You’re a great debater… dare I say a master debater? I enjoy having you on this blog…
Now, where’s my gun?
#20, Loser,
In a civil society, an apology is usually accepted at face value without snide comments.
Is that before you shoot the rude son of a bitch or after?
What if you are offended by the snide remark, can you shoot him then?
What if his buddy shoots you because you shot his friend because you didn’t like the apology he gave when you were rude?
Yes, I am beginning to understand the mind set that suggests everyone should have a gun so we can be free.
#25, Wow, you’re really paranoid.
Yes, I am beginning to understand the mind set that suggests everyone should be disarmed in order to be free.
#7… you have never been to a retirement home. They are very, very sad, lonely, and depressing places. The seniors are just dumped there by their families. No kids taking care of their parents there.
Umm,
this has been happening for over 20+ years..
It takes MORE then 1 income in most homes to Survive..
So..Whats NEW..
#16: Wasn’t searching for a word. It was deliberate. It’s called literary license.
@Uncle Dave
Heavy on the license and lite on the literary.
Uncle Dave,
literary license
Is that one of them there those things that let ya take payen customers in your taxi?
#30: OK, I’ll buy that.
#31: Down the highway to hell. Or a buffet. Whichever’s closer.