"Women are having fewer kids, and demographers don't know why"

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-06-08 20:47

Article here. Excerpt:

'U.S. fertility is not recovering from the financial crisis — and demographers aren’t sure why.

The fertility rate fell to a record low 62.9 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2013, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

The total number of births, at 3.96 million, inched up by a mere 4,000 from 2012, the first increase since the financial crisis. But the total fertility rate, or TFR, the average number of children a woman would have during her child-bearing years, fell to just 1.86, the lowest rate in 27 years. TFR is considered the best metric of fertility. A TFR of 2.1 represents a stable population, with children replacing parents as they die off.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Really? They don't know why? They seem to think it's largely driven by economics. But gee, why if it's getting better economically (a questionable assertion) then is fecundity falling? And yet even among recent arrivals to the US?

Some ideas: Crushing student loan debt. A terrible job market for recent grads. An inability to mate hypergamously, as the recent female grads with jobs tend now to outearn recent male grads with jobs. (Decades of feminism and still, the average woman seeks a better-heeled mate than her because she knows the deal if a divorce comes along, and not only is it likely to, she's a lot more likely to file for it than her husband.) And finally: Men On Strike. Why get married and/or have kids with a woman when the economic factors affecting her also affect you *and* you know assuming the "traditional role" in a marriage is a Domocles Sword hanging over you? Every man in the US who has been here any reasonable length of time and two brain cells to rub together finds out from somebody (or the hard way, via personal experience) what happens to men/fathers when marriages go bust and judges get involved. It's a universal. And yet, demographers just can't seem to figure it out.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-06-08 20:49

I attribute the low birth rates to the devaluation of motherhood and the ease and acceptance of abortion. Younger women get pregnant easier and have the healthiest babies, but try convincing a 20-something year old to get married and have a baby - she'd rather be out partying. Women's behavior then affects men's behavior. Why should either gender settle down? (this is the break down of the social contract between men and women)

Women have only themselves to blame. They are hyper sexual, choose bad men, use birth control and abortion and think they are on top of the world, then they hit about 32 and think they can find a good man to settle down with, but they realize the good men found their mates earlier or good men aren't interested in them. If they are lucky enough to find a man, they realize getting pregnant is no longer easy and often requires expensive fertility treatments.

Women are valued for the sex and reproduction potential, but they don't realize their value is short-lived until it is too late. Men's value continues, but men who make good fathers, have very little incentive to settle down.

Immoral behavior is behavior which harms a person or harms society. Female promiscuity harms society because it inhibits the formation of families. Abortion harms society for the same reason (and if you believe a fetus is human or something which can feel pain, then I would also say that abortion harms a person). So, IMO, both are immoral behavior and both are heavily promoted by feminists.

The low birth rate is just the beginning of more detriment to society...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Fri, 2014-06-13 06:35