U.S. birth rate plummets to its lowest level since 1920


By John Bailo   Follow   Thu, 29 Nov 2012, 5:43pm   1,482 views   26 comments
In Kent WA 98030   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

All around urbanists are touting high density vertically built apartments to satisfy the future demand for young people who want to live in cities.

Or...are we building future ghost towns, like in China?

U.S. birth rate plummets to its lowest level since 1920

The overall birth rate declined by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, with a decrease of 6 percent among U.S.-born women and 14 percent among foreign-born women. The decline for Mexican immigrant women was more extreme, at 23 percent. The overall birth rate is now at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-birth-rate-plummets-to-its-lowest-since-1920/2012/11/29/ee7e8d16-3a3f-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html

Viewing Comments 1-26 of 26     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    198 threads
    7,275 comments

    1   6:07pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Interesting

    Population of the world has increased from about 1.5 billion 100 years ago to over 7 billion now. So if we slow down that would be okay.

    One problem though. All of our economic thinking and models are based on a rapidly growing population. We have no clue what works when populations are just steady, which we might presume will one day be the norm.

  2. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    74 threads
    3,126 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    2   6:22pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    We have no clue what works when populations are just steady, which we might presume will one day be the norm.

    more people do not necessarily make more wealth accretion.

    Though more people do mean more economically effective people, as long as the investment in human capital development scales up with population.

    The dirty secret of this economy is that we all consume much less wealth than we all can produce.

    Other than food & fuel, which obviously are not durable goods, wealth is really only consumed via wear & tear, destroyed in a casualty loss (accident/act of god).

    But the economy becomes unbalanced when there are more takers than makers.

    The Republican analysis is pretty one-sided, pointing at welfare cases as the unproductive parasites, when the reality is two-sided, there's also the top 10% who consume much more than they produce.

    The top 10% take over 30% of the AGI, and much more of the wealth since they own 90% of everything.

    This is their economy and we're just allowed to live in it.

    Until the masses finally rise up & lop off their pretty little heads.

  3. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    74 threads
    3,126 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    3   6:25pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    But as for population, growth is still baked into the cake. "Birth rate" is deceptive since there is a MASSIVE birthing-age population forming now, the baby boom echo.

    which as you can see peaked in 1991, 21 years ago, and births rose from there, too, so there's gonna be a lot of new parents this decade and next!

    No ghost towns here. Unlike Japan, which WILL be actually depopulating over this century. I still don't know what that means for them. I think it's good, though, overall.

  4. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    74 threads
    3,126 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    4   6:32pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I actually have a spreadsheet of US births that I refer to, to look at the future.

    The number of age 26-35 people now is 36M, up ~10% from the demographic hole of 2006.

    This will rise to ~40M by 2020 and stay at that level through 2033, and then keep rising unless the birth rate really falls off from now.

    This doesn't count immigration, btw.

  5. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    379 threads
    10,458 comments

    5   7:23pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    First, they refuse to buy their parents' generation's houses for 100x that they paid for them, allowing them to live in the Caligulan splendor that is their birthright.

    And NOW they refuse to fuck!

    What is with these kids?

  6. everything


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    3 threads
    720 comments

    6   8:17pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    Lol, the men are not manning up.. I know so many men getting kicked out of their homes and denied access to their children, I seen no reason to man up either. Lots of my old girlfriends are now single mothers.

    They'll need all those small apartments for all the single people.

    It's also called female empowerment, or feminism.

    Japan is leading the way in this regard, but so is the U.K., so is the U.S.

    You'll find that where feminism is more rampant, the nation's debt is also quite the same.

  7. elliemae


    Follow
    Befriend (25)
    464 threads
    7,745 comments
    Saint George, UT
    elliemae's website
    Premium

    7   10:18pm Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    everything says

    You'll find that where feminism is more rampant, the nation's debt is also quite the same.

    You're right - women should stay in bad relationships merely to maintain the "ideal" nuclear family. And they should stop attempting to be equal to men, because they're obviously not. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bycicle.

    Don't worry about the birthrate; Hurricane Sandy knocked out power to the entire eastern US recently and in 9 months there will be a jump in the birth rate.

    You're welcome.

  8. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    793 threads
    6,774 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    8   8:12am Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

    What is with these kids?

    Maybe they use birth control, since that's way better than adding yet another mouth into an already overcrowded world.

  9. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    793 threads
    6,774 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    9   8:15am Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Seems to me that we are already grossly overpopulated:

  10. everything


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    3 threads
    720 comments

    10   11:46am Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    That's kind of the problem, women like bad boys, good looking bad boys, bad boys with hair, muscles, etc. -- until they don't. They change their mind allot, see. They also like the men with the money. Other countries laugh at our divorce rate.

    elliemae says

    everything says

    You'll find that where feminism is more rampant, the nation's debt is also quite the same.

    You're right - women should stay in bad relationships merely to maintain the "ideal" nuclear family. And they should stop attempting to be equal to men, because they're obviously not. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bycicle.

    Don't worry about the birthrate; Hurricane Sandy knocked out power to the entire eastern US recently and in 9 months there will be a jump in the birth rate.

    You're welcome.

  11. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    11   1:11pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    “We’ve been assuming that when the baby-boomer population gets most expensive, that there are going to be immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what’s happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions,” he said. “When you think of things like the solvency of Social Security, for example . . . relatively small increases in the dependency ratio can have a huge effect.”

    The solution is stop running Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. You should get out of the system exactly what you put in, no more and no less. Any growth should be due only to the return on the investment earned.

    To require ever increasing future generations to pay for existing members is the very definition of Ponzi scheme.

  12. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    12   1:14pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    John Bailo says

    U.S. birth rate plummets to its lowest level since 1920

    Best news I've heard in a long time. Fewer people competing for what jobs remain. Few people competing for housing. Instead of living in microapartments, we can now have real houses and enough space to fart without blowing someone over.

  13. RentingForHalfTheCost


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    63 threads
    2,546 comments
    Pleasanton, CA

    13   1:21pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Bellingham Bill says

    I actually have a spreadsheet of US births that I refer to, to look at the future.

    The number of age 26-35 people now is 36M, up ~10% from the demographic hole of 2006.

    This will rise to ~40M by 2020 and stay at that level through 2033, and then keep rising unless the birth rate really falls off from now.

    This doesn't count immigration, btw.

    Doesn't count emmigration either.

  14. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    14   1:31pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    everything says

    Lol, the men are not manning up.. I know so many men getting kicked out of their homes and denied access to their children, I seen no reason to man up either. Lots of my old girlfriends are now single mothers.

    elliemae says

    women should stay in bad relationships merely to maintain the "ideal" nuclear

    Women shouldn't reproduce with men who are abusive or rotten. That kind of behavior is hereditary.

    However, I don't think that "men are bad" can explain that 38% of mothers are single. 38% of men are not that bad. And men today are not way the hell worse than men of a 100 or a 1000 years ago. If anything, modern men are way the hell better.

    So there has to be some other reasons why a large percentage of mothers are single. And it's not teen pregnancy as those rates have gone done with the availability of contraception and abortion. The average age of a woman having her first child has increased dramatically.

    The typical single mother is a thirty-something who chooses to have a baby before her biological clock runs out and her only choices are wait and hope to marry, have a child first and then continue looking for a husband, or just go it alone. Instinct persuades most women to have a child even without a committed mate.

    In other words, it's not abuse that has caused the rise of single motherhood. It's the shift from long-term relationships to short-term ones. For various reasons including birth control, changing social attitudes, and the paradox of choice, we have become a society in which relationships are short-term and disposable.

    Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of opinion. That it has happened is a matter of fact. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, because it's irreversible at this point. Best that we just acknowledge the new reality and deal with it.

  15. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    74 threads
    3,126 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    15   1:55pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    To require ever increasing future generations to pay for existing members is the very definition of Ponzi scheme.

    Where do you think "Any growth should be due only to the return on the investment earned." comes from?

    It's all the same.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=djd

    shows we've had tremendous "growth" in the economy -- that's per-worker real GDP.

    Social security has zero problems going forward.

    Its political problem is getting the top 10% of the country to pay off (over the next ~20 years) SSA'a $2.6T in treasuries SSA has been given in return for all the FICA overcontributions, 1989-2009.

    $2.6T over 20 years is a $130B/yr tax hit! We need the return of the Clinton tax rates on the top 10% to cover JUST that, let alone the additional taxation we need to reduce the $1T primary deficit.

    The bottom line here is that this nation needs a 30-40% tax to GDP burden, not the 26% we're enjoying now.

    We just can't soak the rich, it's true that if we taxed them at twice the burdens they pay now, we'd only get $800B more, leaving $500B or more still of deficit, plus all the rising costs of the baby boomers hitting retirement, which is only going to peak in 2022 and remain high for a very long time after.

  16. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,647 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    16   2:03pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    I'm concerned about this issue and would like to offer my reproductive services to cute female Americans, aged 18 to 29, blondes preferred.

    We all must make sacrifices for the good of the nation.

  17. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    17   2:12pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Bellingham Bill says

    Where do you think "Any growth should be due only to the return on the investment earned." comes from?

    As opposed to getting more out of the system by taking it from someone else. Zero sum games are bad.

  18. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    18   2:14pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    I'm concerned about this issue and would like to offer my reproductive services to cute female Americans, aged 18 to 29, blondes preferred.

    We all must make sacrifices for the good of the nation.

    18 to 29 year-old women don't want to have babies. 35 to 45 year-old women do.

  19. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,647 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    19   2:33pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    Dan8267 says

    18 to 29 year-old women don't want to have babies. 35 to 45 year-old women do.

    And THAT my friend is the problem!!!!

    The solution is established 30-50 year olds making babies with 16-25 year olds. They have the money, they have the real estate, and they are horny old farts who wouldn't mind the extra work.

    This is America circa 1900-1950 before feminists destroyed the country. It was VERY common to see a 16-year old girl wedded to a 30+ man.

    One of my favorite pre-code black and white movies is "Three on a match" starring Joan Blondell, Ann Dvorak and Bette Davis produced in 1932. At the end of the first act, the three girls have just attended their Junior High School graduation ceremony (yes Junior High School) and are trying to decide what to do next. None of them are headed for high school.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_on_a_Match

    The first one decides to go to business school, the second one decides to go to finishing school and get married, and the third one is a delinquent who wants to party and have illicit sex during the roaring 20's. (she ends up in reform school)

    Two of the girls end up being married to a character played by Warren William, who was 38 years old at the time. The two are Joan Blondell aged 26 and Ann Dvorak who was only 21 years of age. (actor and actress ages) Instead of painting this man as a sick sex maniac, he's the hero and romance is emphasized throughout.

    The United States is in a cultural twilight zone right now and everything is broken. What used to be common is now considered perversion. A 40-year old who tries to marry a girl fresh out of high school is ridiculed as a borderline pedophile and immature. God forbid anyone try to seduce a 16-year old.

    (disclaimer: I've been happily married to a woman 3 months my senior for over 20 years so no flames please)

  20. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    118 threads
    18,280 comments

    20   2:35pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    This is the middle class silently voicing their protest against high tax rate.

    I am doing my part.

  21. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,026 threads
    12,545 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    21   2:40pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    This is America circa 1900-1950 before feminists destroyed the country. It was VERY common to see a 16-year old girl wedded to a 30+ man.

    And biologically, that was ok.

    iwog says

    At the end of the first act, the three girls have just attended their Junior High School graduation ceremony (yes Junior High School)

    And that's where it becomes not ok.

    Sixteen used to be considered adulthood everywhere in the world. Then it became 18, then 21, then after college, then a few years after college. Now the Millennials don't think adulthood begins until you reach 30.

    The problem is that no matter how much we prolong childhood, our biological age doesn't wait. Ultimately, we all run out of time.

  22. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    793 threads
    6,774 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    22   4:24pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    It's because people are finally figuring out how annoying kids are.

  23. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    118 threads
    18,280 comments

    23   4:27pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    I still fail to see any benefit of having kids.

  24. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    793 threads
    6,774 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    24   4:35pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Would you start a family while the Titanic was sinking into icy, cold waters?

  25. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    118 threads
    18,280 comments

    25   4:37pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    zzyzzx says

    Would you start a family while the Titanic was sinking into icy, cold waters?

    I would try to make babies like crazy, to the tunes of the band that played on, if I was not on one of those lifeboats. LOL!

  26. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    461 threads
    2,929 comments

    26   5:05pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    zzyzzx says

    It's because people are finally figuring out how annoying kids are.

    Nah that is just modern day kids. Where they do nothing till at least 18 or beyond and you spend your time shuttling them from activity to activity.

    Back then you had kids, they worked/helped with the family and were productive members of society from a very young age and when you got old, you could live with them.

John Bailo is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 159 milliseconds to create.