PDA

View Full Version : Women In 20's Not Having Children



Kathianne
05-02-2015, 07:57 PM
This is alarming, seriously. Women in their 20's not replacing themselves, much less a partner. Implications are very bad for their 'golden years' unless there is a huge jump going into their 30's. As the article points out, these types of birthrates haven't worked out well for Europe.

Both of my kids that have kids currently plan to stay at 1, though open to change of minds, (which probably means 2). The third kid, is not in a rush to get married, after his first 3 month marriage. (He should have listened!)

He has been in a relationship now for nearly a year, but she's a lawyer and he's been moving up pretty quickly in his logistics firm. So, they are doing the 'build careers', run marathons, maintain separate apartments in the city, save money, and take 2 trips a year. While he's paid back his student loans, she has well over $100k from Notre Dame Law. As long as she stays at non-profit and makes less than $72k, ND pays her loans. In 8 years they will assume all of her debt from school. (One of the reasons that students should look at long-term costs of private v public universities if they qualify grade wise.) She's 24 and out of school 2 years. He will be 30 in August and has been at his job for 7 years.

They are pretty typical amongst their friends. The older kids are 33 and almost 32, they got married at 29 and 30. Both have the one baby as I said. Of their friends most got married after them, are planning on getting married, or are still single. Still no kids. My daughter has 4 friends that do have kids, but one of those friends got married at 18, had 3 kids by 21, divorced. Remarried and had 2 more. Thankfully the second marriage seems very strong, but she's the anomally in both marrying young and 5 kids! Two of her other friends have 2 kids, 1 has 1 and is done-tubes tied. None of my sons have friends with kids yet.

Anyways, here's the report:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/millenials-not-having-babies/391721/?utm_source=SFTwitter


The Childless Millennial

A new report finds that today's twentysomethings have a lower birthrate than any previous generation.

In a new report (http://www.urban.org/research/publication/millennial-childbearing-and-recession), the Urban Institute think tank writes that in 2012, there were only 948 births per 1,000 women in their 20s, "by far the slowest pace of any generation of young women in U.S. history." In 2007, the rate was 1,118 births per 1,000. The decline in births was largest among Hispanic women, at 26 percent, followed by black women, at 14 percent, and an 11 percent drop for white women.
<big>Decline in Fertility Among Twentysomething Women, by Race</big>
<figure class="right" style="margin: 1em 0px 1em 1em; position: relative; padding: 10px 0px; float: right; clear: right; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lyon Text', Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 30.0000610351563px; max-width: 612px;">https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/04/Screen_Shot_2015_04_28_at_4.47.22_PM/3c01e3311.png<figcaption class="credit" style="font-family: 'Proxima Nova', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.66667rem; text-align: right;">Urban Institute</figcaption></figure>The researchers put forward a few theories for the decrease. One is the Great Recession, which might have hit pause on pregnancy plans because babies are, among other things, expensive. Past studies have estimated (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/the-recessions-baby-bust/380909/) that the recession led to a 2.4 percent decrease in the fertility rate, or about 426,850 live births. The recession also slowed the trickle (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/mexico-is-getting-better-and-fewer-mexicans-want-to-leave/275064/) of immigrants to the U.S., and immigrants tend to have more children.

The authors also found stark differences when they parsed the data by race. For Hispanic and black women, the majority of the fertility decline was explained by falling birth rates among unmarried women. That's generally considered a good thing, because while most single mothers do an admirable job, they are also more likely (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-plight-of-single-moms-and-the-policies-that-would-help/283037/)to be poor, stressed-out, and feel regretful. If more women are waiting until marriage to have kids, they might have an easier time of parenting.
<big>Components of Decreasing Births from 2007 to 2012</big>



<figure style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; position: relative; padding: 10px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lyon Text', Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 30.0000610351563px; max-width: 630px;">https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/04/Screen_Shot_2015_04_28_at_4.37.01_PM/9e0b140c3.png<figcaption class="credit" style="font-family: 'Proxima Nova', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.66667rem; text-align: right;">
National Center for Vital Statistics, U.S. Bureau of the Census, and Urban Institute</figcaption></figure>For white women, though, the story was very different: "81 percent of the decrease in fertility is attributable to declining marriage rates." (Granted, white women were less likely to be single mothers to begin with.) All the single ladies (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/308654/) of countless Internet essays are, indeed, staying unhitched—and they're not having kids as a result.

...

Trigg
05-03-2015, 07:18 AM
hopefully this won't be a long term trend, because you're right it isn't working out well in Europe.

It really isn't surprising though, with the college debt that most kids are coming out with. thinking about kids just isn't on most 20 somethings radar.

Kathianne
05-03-2015, 10:53 AM
hopefully this won't be a long term trend, because you're right it isn't working out well in Europe.

It really isn't surprising though, with the college debt that most kids are coming out with. thinking about kids just isn't on most 20 somethings radar.

I agree on the college debt, though that still only accounts for about 15% of the women...

Noir
05-03-2015, 01:40 PM
Personally we certainly won't be having kids until our thirties, not surprised others are doing the same.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
05-03-2015, 03:45 PM
This is alarming, seriously. Women in their 20's not replacing themselves, much less a partner. Implications are very bad for their 'golden years' unless there is a huge jump going into their 30's. As the article points out, these types of birthrates haven't worked out well for Europe.

Both of my kids that have kids currently plan to stay at 1, though open to change of minds, (which probably means 2). The third kid, is not in a rush to get married, after his first 3 month marriage. (He should have listened!)

He has been in a relationship now for nearly a year, but she's a lawyer and he's been moving up pretty quickly in his logistics firm. So, they are doing the 'build careers', run marathons, maintain separate apartments in the city, save money, and take 2 trips a year. While he's paid back his student loans, she has well over $100k from Notre Dame Law. As long as she stays at non-profit and makes less than $72k, ND pays her loans. In 8 years they will assume all of her debt from school. (One of the reasons that students should look at long-term costs of private v public universities if they qualify grade wise.) She's 24 and out of school 2 years. He will be 30 in August and has been at his job for 7 years.

They are pretty typical amongst their friends. The older kids are 33 and almost 32, they got married at 29 and 30. Both have the one baby as I said. Of their friends most got married after them, are planning on getting married, or are still single. Still no kids. My daughter has 4 friends that do have kids, but one of those friends got married at 18, had 3 kids by 21, divorced. Remarried and had 2 more. Thankfully the second marriage seems very strong, but she's the anomally in both marrying young and 5 kids! Two of her other friends have 2 kids, 1 has 1 and is done-tubes tied. None of my sons have friends with kids yet.

Anyways, here's the report:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/millenials-not-having-babies/391721/?utm_source=SFTwitter

Same thing pretty much has shafted Europe, tis one of the reasons why they invited in all the "guests" that will soon slaughter them..
Britain is a prime example of that and France is as well.-Tyr

Drummond
05-03-2015, 05:35 PM
Same thing pretty much has shafted Europe, tis one of the reasons why they invited in all the "guests" that will soon slaughter them..
Britain is a prime example of that and France is as well.-Tyr

To be fair .. the UK situation on this IS explained, to a great degree, through the issue of affordability. It's partly down to tuition fees, which leave university graduates heavily in debt. But, added to their woes, house prices, especially in London, have gone through the roof. Couples simply cannot afford to settle down, because affording the down-payment on a mortgage would involve their being paid multiples of the wages they can realistically get. It's an effect of the 2008 financial meltdown ... lenders just won't lend money to anything like the extent they did before.

The rental market is doing better than it ever has before. That said, many would-be couples are having to choose to live with parents.

DragonStryk72
05-03-2015, 05:44 PM
To be fair .. the UK situation on this IS explained, to a great degree, through the issue of affordability. It's partly down to tuition fees, which leave university graduates heavily in debt. But, added to their woes, house prices, especially in London, have gone through the roof. Couples simply cannot afford to settle down, because affording the down-payment on a mortgage would involve their being paid multiples of the wages they can realistically get. It's an effect of the 2008 financial meltdown ... lenders just won't lend money to anything like the extent they did before.

The rental market is doing better than it ever has before. That said, many would-be couples are having to choose to live with parents.

Yeah, that definitely seems to agree with the posit that it's related to the Great Recession. The entire field seems to be going through a tectonic shift. Looking to my brother, he works from home, along with his wife, and they have 3 children currently, which they're home-schooling. This trend seems to be picking up, where those my age and younger are waiting into their 30s to start a family, when careers and such are much more stable.

fj1200
05-04-2015, 08:36 AM
This is alarming, seriously. Women in their 20's not replacing themselves, much less a partner. Implications are very bad for their 'golden years' unless there is a huge jump going into their 30's. As the article points out, these types of birthrates haven't worked out well for Europe.

I don't know that the implications are so bad. Kids were formerly an economic asset that would work the farm, care for you in old age, etc. The whole rationale for having children is changed. There are plenty of support systems in place for the golden years that weren't there in the past.


hopefully this won't be a long term trend, because you're right it isn't working out well in Europe.

It really isn't surprising though, with the college debt that most kids are coming out with. thinking about kids just isn't on most 20 somethings radar.

Define "working out." This isn't a short-term trend.


To be fair .. the UK situation on this IS explained, to a great degree, through the issue of affordability.

Probably less than you think. If this were a short-term trend or the UK were an outlier then you might be on to something but neither of those seem to be true. For the most part fertility rates are determined by the level of economic development of the country in question.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesgruber/files/2014/02/Low-birth-rates-in-western-world.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG

Kathianne
05-04-2015, 08:42 AM
FJ, how many of today's workers provide for today's SSI?

fj1200
05-04-2015, 08:47 AM
FJ, how many of today's workers provide for today's SSI?

I'm aware of that and how poorly designed SS is and how it's structured but that's an argument against SS and not necessarily the problems of a low-birth rate.

http://socialsecurity.procon.org/files/1-social-security-images/chart-of-the-estimated-decline-of-workers-per-beneficiary-from-5.1-in-1960-to-2.1-in-2035-picture.jpg

Kathianne
05-04-2015, 08:48 AM
Commonsense would argue for 2.+ just to keep population stability.

fj1200
05-04-2015, 08:54 AM
Commonsense would argue for 2.+ just to keep population stability.

We're projected to keep growing for quite some time, due to lower death rate and immigration I think, but we'll just have to look for other countries that will/are going through real population declines like Japan and parts of Europe.

Drummond
05-04-2015, 08:55 PM
Probably less than you think. If this were a short-term trend or the UK were an outlier then you might be on to something but neither of those seem to be true. For the most part fertility rates are determined by the level of economic development of the country in question.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesgruber/files/2014/02/Low-birth-rates-in-western-world.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG

You can't see a link between the two ?? How likely do you think it would be for couples who can't afford their own home, who even still live with parents, to create sizeable families of their own ??

Trigg
05-05-2015, 02:37 PM
I don't know that the implications are so bad. Kids were formerly an economic asset that would work the farm, care for you in old age, etc. The whole rationale for having children is changed. There are plenty of support systems in place for the golden years that weren't there in the past.



Define "working out." This isn't a short-term trend.






By "working out" I mean they're having to import workers because the native population is getting older/retiring and there just aren't enough people coming into the workforce.

Relying on immigration to fill out the population isn't the answer either, since the birthrate of many developing countries is going down.

Perianne
05-05-2015, 04:05 PM
By "working out" I mean they're having to import workers because the native population is getting older/retiring and there just aren't enough people coming into the workforce.

Relying on immigration to fill out the population isn't the answer either, since the birthrate of many developing countries is going down.

I wonder why only brown-skinned people are reproducing at a high rate?

fj1200
05-06-2015, 12:59 PM
You can't see a link between the two ?? How likely do you think it would be for couples who can't afford their own home, who even still live with parents, to create sizeable families of their own ??

I said less than you think. The UK has the same basic trend as about every other developed country on earth so I'll tend to think it's a bit deeper than what you assert. Unless you have some data that would support your posit of course.


By "working out" I mean they're having to import workers because the native population is getting older/retiring and there just aren't enough people coming into the workforce.

Relying on immigration to fill out the population isn't the answer either, since the birthrate of many developing countries is going down.

Free peoples making free decisions. The rationale for children is different today than it was decades/centuries ago.

DLT
05-06-2015, 01:51 PM
This is alarming, seriously. Women in their 20's not replacing themselves, much less a partner. Implications are very bad for their 'golden years' unless there is a huge jump going into their 30's. As the article points out, these types of birthrates haven't worked out well for Europe.

Both of my kids that have kids currently plan to stay at 1, though open to change of minds, (which probably means 2). The third kid, is not in a rush to get married, after his first 3 month marriage. (He should have listened!)

He has been in a relationship now for nearly a year, but she's a lawyer and he's been moving up pretty quickly in his logistics firm. So, they are doing the 'build careers', run marathons, maintain separate apartments in the city, save money, and take 2 trips a year. While he's paid back his student loans, she has well over $100k from Notre Dame Law. As long as she stays at non-profit and makes less than $72k, ND pays her loans. In 8 years they will assume all of her debt from school. (One of the reasons that students should look at long-term costs of private v public universities if they qualify grade wise.) She's 24 and out of school 2 years. He will be 30 in August and has been at his job for 7 years.

They are pretty typical amongst their friends. The older kids are 33 and almost 32, they got married at 29 and 30. Both have the one baby as I said. Of their friends most got married after them, are planning on getting married, or are still single. Still no kids. My daughter has 4 friends that do have kids, but one of those friends got married at 18, had 3 kids by 21, divorced. Remarried and had 2 more. Thankfully the second marriage seems very strong, but she's the anomally in both marrying young and 5 kids! Two of her other friends have 2 kids, 1 has 1 and is done-tubes tied. None of my sons have friends with kids yet.

Anyways, here's the report:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/millenials-not-having-babies/391721/?utm_source=SFTwitter

Add to that the problem that, with China supplying Levonorgestrel (the morning after/abortion pill).....considering their reliability and past history/track record for producing 'safe products'....

American women of the child-bearing age will probably become sterile and infertile in a few generations anyway.

DLT
05-06-2015, 01:59 PM
FJ, how many of today's workers provide for today's SSI?

A dwindling too few, that's for sure. Add to that the problem of Obama's War on (non-government) Jobs....coupled with his penchant for bringing in millions of new workers to take what few jobs we do still have.....

and you have a Marxist recipe for a Cloward-Piven-style collapse/disaster.