The Wall Street Journal ran a story on May 26, 2023, noting that 'The U.S. birth rate is down sharply from 15 years ago, as women report that economic and social obstacles are causing them to have fewer children than they want.' The reasons cited in the piece focused on the material: the inability to afford a house while repaying student loans, men lacking earning power compared to the female cohort, and women being better educated than men. The article cited President Joe Biden as proposing paid family leave, subsidized child care, and federally funded preschool as ways to convince people to have more children. Some thoughts: If the real reason people cannot afford housing now is student loan debt, whereas the previous generation could afford housing in the past, then that suggests more student loan borrowing may not have been such a good idea, doesn't it? I also think providing free child care or preschools is a terrible idea that doesn't really make logical sense. Why not rather just pay women to take care of their own children? That might make more sense and be more economically efficient. It doesn't really make sense to be paying for someone else to look after the child when the cost of daycare is nearly as high as what that mother would earn if she were working. That would be an economic malincentive (or in more typical economics terminology, a 'perverse incentive'). The article continues: Yet looking to the states, there are massive differences in the birth rate among women 15 to 44 years in 2021. Women in No. 1 South Dakota bore almost 53% more babies per capita than their peers in last place Vermont. A national ranking of child care that compares cost as a share of income, availability and quality finds a modestly negative correlation to child care: of the seven states with the lowest natality, six of them are in the top 10 best states for child care. There are three factors that statistically predict higher birth rates: a state’s cost of living (a lower cost of living associated with a higher birth rate); the share of residents who seldom or never attend religious services (with a lower connection to organized religion associated with lower birth rates); and the 2020 vote for Joe Biden (with states that gave Biden the largest share having the lowest birth rates). Of all the factors, the vote for Biden was the strongest predictor of a low birth rate. The American birth rate is plummeting, but not in some states, Chuck DeVore, Fox News related thread: Are Millennials screwed? Remember, the younger generation is where babies come from in society, so if the younger adult generation is financially struggling and not having children then the birth rates for the society as a whole will be down by almost the same amount. (those in the age range over 40 do not tend to have children very often) This will undoubtedly have long-term ramifications for the future. This is a phenomena that has been going on for some time now, but has only accelerated in recent years. (I'd say it started in 2005, grew obvious in the aftermath of the 2007 Recession, then only picked up even more with the "Coronavirus pandemic" of 2020 to 2021, if we want to try to assign some specific time points)
another related thread: Millennials say no to kids, population 'replacement level' turns negative (posted by Channe in Current Events on March 3, 2018 ) "the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has slipped below the 2.1 children per mother threshold regarded as the 'replacement level.'" citing an article from the Washington Examiner, "Millennials say no to kids, population 'replacement level' turns negative", by Paul Bedard, November 15, 2017 America is in a 'baby bust', driven by millennials who are having kids at record low rates, according to a new report that warns America is no longer making enough babies to keep pace with deaths. While moms need to have 2.1 births to keep pace with deaths, a number last hit in 2010, it has dropped dramatically to just 1.8, according to a report from the Negative Population Growth Inc., which cheers negative growth. The fertility rate decline is driven entirely by millennial mothers in their teens and twenties, said the report. Birth rates for all age groups of women under 30 fell to record lows in 2016.
Government policy is geared towards getting women out into the workforce, not in staying home and raising their kids. That's why the mismatch between policies that don't do anything to increase fertility but do increase opportunities to go to work.
I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really make sense to get her "out into the workforce" in this situation. That is piecemeal logic. If the cost of outside childcare is 90% of what she could be earning, it's probably more sensical for her to just look after her child herself. You know how I can prove this? Because if it really made more sense to work, she would be choosing that decision on her own, without the need for government to subsidize daycare. The cost-benefit analysis (whether it really makes economic sense to society as a whole) of whether women should choose daycare is independent of whether or not daycare is subsidized. I'm not even saying don't subsidize women having children in this argument, I'm just saying don't incentivize a woman to choose one option over another. Any money given to her should be given to her regardless of whether she chooses to put her child into daycare or chooses to care for the child herself. The payment should be given to the mother without discrimination as to how she chooses to provide care for her child.
I'm just saying that government policy is geared towards getting and keeping women in the workforce. I get your logic about if child care is x and her salary is y, it often makes more sense for her to stay home. That's not what government policy wants.
Every single mother I grew up around, worked and raise kids at the same time. Yes, it’s possible and women do do it.
It doesn't appear to be stopping the people who rely on welfare to raise their children and breed irresponsibly
Well that's a different issue. Government policy pays them to have kids. But that doesn't help the working or middle class who are not part of those programs.
It’s up the individual person to determine. I don’t have much personal tolerance for society telling me what’s best for me as a woman.
But it does anyway, in big ways and small, from the tax code to child care subsidies. I assume you are opposed to them since that might interfere with your agency?
The government is not your baby daddy.... Can't feed it ? Don't breed it... Liberals everywhere cheer as long as the welfare baby is not a white baby....
