« prev   random   next »

5
3

One in five women are childless at 45 and they are having fewer offspring than ever

By MrMagic following x   2017 Nov 26, 1:55pm 2,862 views   21 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Women are having fewer children than ever before and more are staying childless, new data reveals today.

Women who turned 45 in 2016 had an average of 1.80 children, down from 2.21 for their mothers' generation, who turned 45 in 1944.

The same generation also had fewer children by their 30th birthday, suggesting women are having children later in life. Women who turned 45 last year had 1.06 children by 30 compared to 1.8 in their mother's generation.

In total, 18 per cent of women who turned 45 last year had no children at all, compared with 11 per cent of women in their mother's generation.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5114351/Women-having-fewer-children-ever.html
#misc
1   Goran_K   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 26, 2:01pm   ↑ like (8)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Overwhelming percentage of them are Democrats. Democrats hate the traditional nuclear family because the majority of nuclear families are primarily moderate to conservative and don’t want 50 year old male, violent felons, peeing in the same bathroom as their 5 year old daughters.

Plus the stability of the traditional nuclear family breaks dependency on government which in turn gives less power and responsibility to the state. LBJ realized this and that’s why his Great Society movement was so damaging to the black community. Highest single parent family rate, highest welfare claim rate, highest violent crime rate, lowest high school and college graduation rates. This is the perfect formula for a nanny political state.
2   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 26, 2:05pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sad. All result of the leftoid, cultural-marxist identity politics and their hate for the nuclear family.
3   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 26, 2:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I wonder why that would be?

5   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 26, 2:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That is a pretty high number. I don't have stats, but I would venture a guess-those childless women are successful and not living off the govt teat and the deadbeats are the ones having children??
6   Goran_K   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 26, 2:18pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
That is a pretty high number. I don't have stats, but I would venture a guess-those childless women are successful and not living off the govt teat and the deadbeats are the ones having children??


True but both vote for the same team time and time again.
7   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 26, 2:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
Women who turned 45 in 2016 had an average of 1.80 children, down from 2.21 for their mothers' generation, who turned 45 in 1944.
That would have been their grandmother's generation--someone who turned 45 in 1944 would have been 71 by the time today's 45 year olds were born. Their mothers would be closer to the World War II or Silent Generation, but they were still having a lot of children in those years, probably the 2.21 or better, especially post-war.
8   HEYYOU   ignore (27)   2017 Nov 26, 5:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Some women ciphered that 7.6 billion are too many.
9   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 26, 5:38pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I’m betting the Muslim women in the UK are having plenty of kids, probably enough to seriously skew the average towards something reasonable rather than the abysmal mess it actually is with the indigenous population.
10   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 26, 6:44pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
I’m betting the Muslim women in the UK are having plenty of kids, probably enough to seriously skew the average towards something reasonable rather than the abysmal mess it actually is with the indigenous population.


The jews are also doing their part to keep the numbers up. It's not uncommon to see a Jewish family with 5 kids under 5 years old in my area.
11   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 26, 9:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
Sad. All result of the leftoid, cultural-marxist identity politics and their hate for the nuclear family.

Nope. The result of the left-right neo-liberalism consensus: They want women to work, not to have kids.
Kids can be "offsourced" to immigrant women.
Note that:
- among professional women the childless proportion raises to around 40%
- most of these women do want to have kids. They don't find committed guys. They have to give precedence to carriers in their 20s.
12   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 27, 12:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
You do know that a woman doesn't need to have a committed guy to have a baby, right?


Tell them that.
13   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 27, 12:14pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What we have here is the genocide of smart people.
Once a culture sees perpetuating itself as secondary and fosters people like Dan, it's circling the drain.
14   WookieMan   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 27, 12:44pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'd venture to guess that women in the US are sometimes (many times) financially not able to have kids. Times have changed when it comes to the cost of at giving birth to a child, at least from an insurance perspective (those not poor enough for any assistance). I'm mid 30's and have spoken with my mom about having kids. She paid something like $25-$50 for me (to the hospital/insurance). My wife's insurance plan I would categorize as average. Not super high deductible, but okay. $3,500 out of pocket for my first kid, 7 years ago.

It's anecdotal, but just had a friend get pregnant with their 2nd child after waiting 4 years. Their main concern was child care because they both work, but the deductible was a consideration. $3k-$4k for out of pocket expenses and then 6 weeks later you're paying $800/mo minimum for child care if you have both spouses working. And that's a cheap rate in most places worth living for daycare. Raising non-school aged kids is getting close to owning 2nd homes at this point. Once they're in school it gets better, but damn, depending on how quickly you have them, those first 5-7 years in a two kid family are rough.

Kids have always been expensive, but just the act of getting them out of your lady's body has increased exponentially in just about 25-30 years for the average family. I don't think the amount of increase has an equal when comparing other industries and products you pay for.
15   Patrick   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 27, 12:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Medical prices are arbitrary and hidden.

They have nothing to do with actual costs, and will never be accurately disclosed in advance of treatment, because that would allow market forces to contain them.
16   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 27, 12:55pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I understand wanting children when you could use them as slave labor in the fields, but today, not so much. For reasons I don't understand, you can't even beat your kids when they misbehave. Unless you can use them as a human shield, I really don't see the point in having them. They are a giant sinkhole of time and money. I enjoy sleeping in on weekends and walking around the house naked. Besides that, suppose I had a kid and one of my cats found it annoying; finding a new home for the kid could be difficult!
17   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 27, 1:14pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yeah, you can put down a pet, but if you put down your kid it's bridal gown time in Leavenworth.
18   WookieMan   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 27, 2:00pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
For reasons I don't understand, you can't even beat your kids when they misbehave.

I assume there was a little/lot sarcasm here. Parenting for sure has gotten wickedly soft when I observe my peers (that actually have kids - very few). But beating a kid doesn't really teach them much. You can be strict and even harsh, but you need to make a kid think and not just "beat" them into thinking.

Either way, the insurance company got about $7k from my family for 2 kids. My folks are well off enough and even they are astonished about the costs of evacuating a baby out of a lady. Insurance is probably our countries biggest issue right now in my estimation. It completely drains middle class families and small business owners that use it to attract talent. Between premiums and deductibles you could buy a really solid used car or even cheap new car every 2-3 years cash with those payments.
20   RC2006   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 6:37pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

They wait to long to get off the cock carousel.
21   just_dregalicious   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 6:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

x-axis ends in 72!?

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions