Birthrates in the U.S. hit historic low in 2023, preliminary CDC data show

[essentialsaltes]

The number of babies born in the United States fell by 2 percent in 2023, according to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The drop signals a return to the downward trend in birthrates seen before the pandemic, with numbers hitting historic lows.

The decline follows relative stability in the birthrate from 2021 to 2022 after a modest 1 percent rise from 2020 to 2021, when the coronavirus pandemic raged.

Hamilton also noted that the data show the fourth consecutive increase in the yearly rate of caesarean deliveries since 2020. [to 32.4%] That is a worrying trend because of the high risk of complications associated with caesarean versus vaginal births.

Julia Strasser, director of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health and an assistant research professor of health policy and management at George Washington University, said that although experts have not pinpointed a single cause for this decline, factors such as student loan debt, high housing costs and economic uncertainty are thought to influence younger generations’ decisions to delay or forgo having children.

Strasser added that recent court rulings on birth control, fertility treatments and women’s reproductive health also could have an effect on birthrates.

--

From the CDC link, the total fertility rate was 1.62 births per woman. Replacement rate would be a little over 2 per woman.

 

[Desk trauma]

Strasser added that recent court rulings on birth control, fertility treatments and women’s reproductive health also could have an effect on birthrates.

Gotta get that domestic supply of infants one way or the other.

 

[RileyG]

People are living longer and having less children. I’m not surprised by this.

 

[jayem]

A declining birthrate is an argument for immigration reform. I'm OK with improved border security, but we need people willing to work. Guest workers should be fully documented, treated humanely, and paid fairly. Sure, they'll send money to families in their home countries, but they'll also spend money here. With a shrinking pool of native-born workers, immigrants will be necessary to keep our economy growing. This should be common sense.

 

[trophy33]

With a shrinking pool of native-born workers, immigrants will be necessary to keep our economy growing. This should be common sense.

Automation, robotization, AI and generally higher productivity because of technological advances is another way - less people can do exponentially more work.

There are also other, not so nice ways - for example the cancellation of benefits and of the social security ("without the state inverventions" like few centuries ago - i.e. a truly free market; who would want to have an easier life will naturally need to have children, like its in all similar self-sustained communities - Amish, for example).

 

[Nithavela]

Automation, robotization, AI and generally higher productivity because of technological advances is another way - less people can do exponentially more work.

There are also other, not so nice ways - for example the cancellation of benefits and of the social security ("without the state inverventions" like few centuries ago - i.e. a truly free market; who would want to have an easier life will naturally need to have children, like its in all similar self-sustained communities - Amish, for example).

I'm sorry, do I understand you right? You want to kick people off the dole so they instead have children as a means of livelihood?

 

[durangodawood]

American style capitalism is not exactly family friendly for the typical young adult, even though there's vast amounts of net wealth being created.

People are feeling this more and more

 

[Chesterton]

It's strange how someone can wish for the total extinction of all mankind one day, and the next day virtue signal a love for humanity.

 

[public hermit]

It's sad these young folks who want children are holding off because they know it's financially unwise. But it's also really impressive they are that controlled and prudent. Who are these freaks with virtue so young? I am often impressed and hopeful about these younger generations. They are self-aware and concerned about the plight of others in ways that just weren't coming through for us on our MTV. Lol. I hate they'll probably have to work so much harder just get by.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As expensive as it is to raise kids, that’s not really the main reason people wait. If cost were the main impediment, then affluent people would have more kids than poor people, but that’s not what happens. Anywhere. In virtually every country, regardless of the largesse of their welfare system, it’s the poor who have more kids.

The primary reason people wait seems to be opportunity cost. When people, but especially women, have more education and greater career prospects, they put off having kids because child rearing is too much of a burden during the formative years of their career. Conversely, when people don’t have as much to lose by skipping work in their 20’s, they have more kids.

 

[Pommer]

It's sad these young folks who want children are holding off because they know it's financially unwise. But it's also really impressive they are that controlled and prudent. Who are these freaks with virtue so young? I am often impressed and hopeful about these younger generations. They are self-aware and concerned about the plight of others in ways that just weren't coming through for us on our MTV. Lol. I hate they'll probably have to work so much harder just get by.

Capitalism is never “pretty”; and downright ugly sometimes.

 

[jayem]

Automation, robotization, AI and generally higher productivity because of technological advances is another way - less people can do exponentially more work.

There are also other, not so nice ways - for example the cancellation of benefits and of the social security ("without the state inverventions" like few centuries ago - i.e. a truly free market; who would want to have an easier life will naturally need to have children, like its in all similar self-sustained communities - Amish, for example).

AI is in its childhood. As of now, we still need manual labor. Which our native born population eschews.

BTW, try running for office on a platform of ending SS, or Medicare/Medicaid. See you how far you get.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There's a couple different issues that are intersecting on this one.

And they raise certain questions about the sustainability of certain programs.

Some things that don't gel together well:
"we need to make sure we don't make too many people, too many people is one of the culprits of ecological destruction"
and
"we need to have more people, because we need laborers and more people chipping into social welfare programs to take care of the aging population that can no longer work" (so we don't end up in the same precarious situation countries like Japan and China)


The metric the OECD refers to as "the old age dependency ratio" is one that needs to be evaluated and monitored.

A) because the environment can't sustain the model of "we just need more people working in order to pay for this other group of people"

B) even if the ecological environment could sustain it, the economic environment could not. "Working/Jobs" is contingent upon satisfying a need for a good or service that people want. It's not like we can say "okay, great, we've got 3 million new able bodies, let's go pick a job off the magic job tree so they can start working and paying into social security"


To me, one of the most sensible reforms would be to adjust our social security programs so that they're means based and needs based. People will need reevaluate how they think about that program. It's in the name "social security" meaning it's to help ensure the social security of the elderly and disabled population for whom that could be a challenge.

There's no reason why a person in their upper 60's who's sitting on $800k worth of real-estate and a 7-figure bank account (and possibly pensions and stocks) needs to be getting a check from the government for $2500 a month.

Typically, the boomer era people you talk to seem to bristle at the idea, and usually respond with "no, I paid into it, that's MY money"...and also responding with the types of condescending things like "well, in my day, by the time I was their age, I was already married with a house and 2 cars" (while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were able to do that in a time where the median home price was only 2-3 times the median income...unlike now where it can be 4-7x depending on what state you live in, and that they benefitted greatly off of the post WW2 economic boom)

 

[Ana the Ist]

A declining birthrate is an argument for immigration reform. I'm OK with improved border security, but we need people willing to work. Guest workers should be fully documented, treated humanely, and paid fairly. Sure, they'll send money to families in their home countries, but they'll also spend money here. With a shrinking pool of native-born workers, immigrants will be necessary to keep our economy growing.

Or you know....pay citizens willing to work a fair living. Then they can afford to have children.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Or you know....pay citizens willing to work a fair living. Then they can afford to have children.

Problem is, that doesn't actually get people to make more babies. As I pointed out, it actually does the opposite.

 

[jayem]

To me, one of the most sensible reforms would be to adjust our social security programs so that they're means based and needs based. People will need reevaluate how they think about that program. It's in the name "social security" meaning it's to help ensure the social security of the elderly and disabled population for whom that could be a challenge.

There's no reason why a person in their upper 60's who's sitting on $800k worth of real-estate and a 7-figure bank account (and possibly pensions and stocks) needs to be getting a check from the government for $2500 a month.

Medicaid is means-based. It’s funded jointly by the states and the federal government and there is some variation in benefits in each state’s program.

Re. SS: There is a maximum benefit no matter how much the recipient has paid in over the years. And up to 85% of SS payouts are taxable, and must be declared on each year’s 1040.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A declining birthrate is an argument for immigration reform. I'm OK with improved border security, but we need people willing to work. Guest workers should be fully documented, treated humanely, and paid fairly. Sure, they'll send money to families in their home countries, but they'll also spend money here. With a shrinking pool of native-born workers, immigrants will be necessary to keep our economy growing. This should be common sense.

If they come here legaly and are vetted I have NO prblem with them none.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Medicaid is means-based. It’s funded jointly by the states and the federal government and there is some variation in benefits in each state’s program.

Re. SS: There is a maximum benefit no matter how much the recipient has paid in over the years. And up to 85% of SS payouts are taxable, and must be declared on each year’s 1040.

Right, but my point was that in order for the social security program to remain solvent (and adequately funded for people who actually need it), we're going to need to have some serious conversations about specifically who does and doesn't need it in order to remain "socially secure"

If someone owns 2 homes, has a nice bank account, and is in their 70's, they don't need to be getting a government check to be "secure", it should be reserved for people who actually need it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As expensive as it is to raise kids, that’s not really the main reason people wait. If cost were the main impediment, then affluent people would have more kids than poor people

Is this the reasoning you're referring to?

Problem is, that doesn't actually get people to make more babies. As I pointed out, it actually does the opposite.

Just want to check before I start destroying that post.

 

[Fantine]

I am amazed (and not in a good way) at how expensive necessities are now.

I live in one of the least expensive areas of the country.

Seen around town: Daycare for one four year old-$250 per week. Private swim lessons at the local fitness center-$35 per half hour. Parochial school tuition-$6600 per year. Babysitter (for a night out) $15 an hour.

Is it any wonder that families are smaller? Most young families require two incomes, but who could afford $500 a week for daycare for two?