US birth rate falls to lowest point in more than a century

[gothicdream 39,655]

 

[Economy 52,844]

4 hours ago, Fingerella said:

isnt america overpopulated anyways? 

Not really... the cities where ppl choose to concentrate are theres a difference

[Economy 52,844]

5 hours ago, sarahb said:

The fact that sooo many people want children in even the best of times has always baffled me anyway. Like you guys want to have less money, sleep and time? For 18 years bare minimum? And billions of people choose this? 

But then again I don't have a maternal bone in my body anyway 

If the only purpose in ur life is money sure what ur saying makes sense

 

For a long time i thought the same on kids and now as im approaching 30s i find myself starting to think differently

[Monster647 444]

Too lazy to read and dive deep into the details but I think birth rate should have increased among higher income populations in developed countries (not rich but starting from upper middle class). 

Covid-19 hit low income workers who worked hands-on manual handling & service job workers hardest. Given that they are the majority in populace + usually have higher birth rates, it's understandable that overall birth rate decreased. 

But working from home for last year, I lost track of pregnancies announced at my work place. I think white collar people's birth rate increased which makes sense given that working from home - being home makes it easier to nurse a new born for a couple ++ white collar people also have more disposable income since they don't spend money outside or on vacations. 

[RAMROD 117,019]

This is both, bad and good.

I don't want USA to meet the same fate as the Top 5 aging population countries such as Japan, Italy, Finland, Portugal, and Greece bevause there are not enough straughts couples desiring to have children anymore.

But I also doesn't want overpopulated USA more than it already is.

The key would be balance but it will be hard issue to push. 

 

[sarahb 17,187]

3 hours ago, KanyeWest said:

i think this sounds like how people would shame others for wanting no kids. no need to make fun of those who want one just like those who hate kids its valid and some love kids some hate it. 

I don't mean to shame anyone, if you want kids more power to you it's just a choice that I've never been able to wrap my head around. 

I mean I've never been able to wrap my head around why so many people enjoy coffee so much either  

2 hours ago, Economy said:

If the only purpose in ur life is money sure what ur saying makes sense

For a long time i thought the same on kids and now as im approaching 30s i find myself starting to think differently

I hope I stay the same. I just got no interest in having kids no more than I and most people have no interest in owning say a large parrot  That's a lot of responsibility I'd rather just...not have. 

 

[Economy 52,844]

3 hours ago, RAMROD said:

This is both, bad and good.

I don't want USA to meet the same fate as the Top 5 aging population countries such as Japan, Italy, Finland, Portugal, and Greece bevause there are not enough straughts couples desiring to have children anymore.

But I also doesn't want overpopulated USA more than it already is.

The key would be balance but it will be hard issue to push. 

 

The US isnt overpopulated overall. It has a lot of land relatove to population actually. It feels overpopulated cuz ppl concentrate themselves in specific metros

 

Also US birth rate is already below replacement rate for quite some time. It doesnt need to drop further. If ur worried about population numbers a simple tweek to immigration numbers will do it but tbh i dont think its necessairy

[Economy 52,844]

1 hour ago, sarahb said:

I don't mean to shame anyone, if you want kids more power to you it's just a choice that I've never been able to wrap my head around. 

I mean I've never been able to wrap my head around why so many people enjoy coffee so much either  

I hope I stay the same. I just got no interest in having kids no more than I and most people have no interest in owning say a large parrot  That's a lot of responsibility I'd rather just...not have. 

 

Its a totally fine choice and preference to have. Im just saying i dont find it that weird that many still like to raise a little one cuz i feel that way now

 

[Gabi001 2,470]

15 hours ago, Lilbit said:

People can’t afford to give birth. It costs tens of thousands of dollars here. People who can’t afford health insurance are told they don’t qualify for Medicare. 
Higher education is a scam here. Most millennials are back with their parents or could never afford to leave…

And this was before the Panda Express. 

I'm sincerely shocked that even giving birth is something you have to pay for in the US  and Americans still think that their country is best in the world 

[SharkmanthaC 115,042]

13 hours ago, Helxig said:

I told y'all in the thread about condom sales that this is why they've skyrocketed 

Who the hell can afford to have a baby? Having a child in this economy can bankrupt a family and stretch them past their breaking points. Especially in the US where if you don't have insurance they charge you like $20,000 to even have the baby

I keep being reminded recently how grateful I am to be gay and never have to worry about accidentally creating a baby    what a concept. Sorry straights

Let's talk about how I'm going to be paying $20,000 just to have a kid.

9 hours ago, CHIPCHROME said:

Yes and plenty of people still pay for surrogates rather than adopt. Its just the beauty of capitalism and american entitlement 

First of all, adoption isn't always free, especially if you want to adopt an infant. Not all people that use surrogacy is because they just don't want to carry a baby, there are many couples (I'm speaking of hetero couples) that cannot carry a baby for various medical reasons. So while I understand what you mean, surrogacy isn't just something that is done because people can.

 

I think that the pandemic played a large role in this. There are many things going on that could have made people want to wait to have kids during the pandemic. As many of you mentioned, financial reasons were probably a big factor. However, many obstetricians are not allowing partners/husbands to attend any prenatal  appointments (including ultrasounds, etc). This is still happening now. Given the choice, some families may be waiting because of that. Also, the drop in older women could be because many fertility clinics stopped doing new cycles for several months last year. If you were mid-IVF they would continue but they were not starting anyone on new cycles (which take months to go through). Since fertility goes down with age, there may be some correlation to that and older women not having children. Even if you were doing fertility treatments, those weren't in ideal conditions. I did two (failed) IUIs (or artificial inseminations) last year and my husband couldn't even be in the room with me. I just joked with him that had they worked we would just tell our child that he wasn't even there when they were conceived.  Now that we are moving forward with IVF soon, he will only be allowed to go into some appointments with me because they will use sedation or pain medication for some of the procedures. The fertility clinic will allow him to go in for the ultrasounds (for the first 8 weeks) but many ob/gyn offices still aren't allowing that.

[CHIPCHROME 707]

1 hour ago, SamanthaC said:

Let's talk about how I'm going to be paying $20,000 just to have a kid.

First of all, adoption isn't always free, especially if you want to adopt an infant. Not all people that use surrogacy is because they just don't want to carry a baby, there are many couples (I'm speaking of hetero couples) that cannot carry a baby for various medical reasons. So while I understand what you mean, surrogacy isn't just something that is done because people can.

 

I think that the pandemic played a large role in this. There are many things going on that could have made people want to wait to have kids during the pandemic. As many of you mentioned, financial reasons were probably a big factor. However, many obstetricians are not allowing partners/husbands to attend any prenatal  appointments (including ultrasounds, etc). This is still happening now. Given the choice, some families may be waiting because of that. Also, the drop in older women could be because many fertility clinics stopped doing new cycles for several months last year. If you were mid-IVF they would continue but they were not starting anyone on new cycles (which take months to go through). Since fertility goes down with age, there may be some correlation to that and older women not having children. Even if you were doing fertility treatments, those weren't in ideal conditions. I did two (failed) IUIs (or artificial inseminations) last year and my husband couldn't even be in the room with me. I just joked with him that had they worked we would just tell our child that he wasn't even there when they were conceived.  Now that we are moving forward with IVF soon, he will only be allowed to go into some appointments with me because they will use sedation or pain medication for some of the procedures. The fertility clinic will allow him to go in for the ultrasounds (for the first 8 weeks) but many ob/gyn offices still aren't allowing that.

First of all, im not reading all dat because you missed my point. Adoption/Fostering is always an option, trust me. America DOESNT need more babies. And (hetero) people who ignore that and still opt for surrogacy are entitled asf! Plenty of LGBT couples are denied the ability to adopt/foster due to systematic  bias. 

[Lilbit 1,596]

2 hours ago, Gabi001 said:

I'm sincerely shocked that even giving birth is something you have to pay for in the US  and Americans still think that their country is best in the world 

NOTHING is free here including the people 

[LaLuna 12,732]

Good. People need to stop making so many babies, the planet is overpopulated anyway.

[SharkmanthaC 115,042]

2 hours ago, CHIPCHROME said:

First of all, im not reading all dat because you missed my point. Adoption/Fostering is always an option, trust me. America DOESNT need more babies. And (hetero) people who ignore that and still opt for surrogacy are entitled asf! Plenty of LGBT couples are denied the ability to adopt/foster due to systematic  bias. 

Yes adoption and fostering are always and option. But then everyone should be adopting and fostering, not just people facing infertility. Just because someone has a medical diagnosis of infertility doesn't mean that they should be obligated to adopt just like someone else that is able to have children. I didn't miss you point. I just know what it's like to want a child of your own, and the depression that I've been in for the past three years trying to make that happen. You don't get to judge someone else's life decisions. Adoption and fostering are wonderful options if you feel that is right for you. People shouldn't be adopting and fostering children just because. Adopted children should be wanted just as much as a child born into a family, children shouldn't be adopted out of an obligation. No one is ignoring that there are children that need to be adopted, but for some people that isn't the best option for their family. Fostering to adopt is a long process and can be an expensive one even if done through a state agency. Not to mention you aren't necessarily guaranteed to have a child in the end because the goal of fostering is reunification of the family. If you go through a private agency for adoption, it costs just as much as fertility treatments, and once again you are not guaranteed a child. If you feel so strongly about adopting and fostering then you should be out there doing it yourself. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,563]

I'm genuinely baffled and slightly disturbed at all these people saying that we need to stop producing, that it's better for the environment and we're over-populated. It's such a Western view to have and that's why so many Western nations economies are starting to struggle. I don't think the concept of less people in a country has been thought through enough. Do you ever stop to think that the smaller a population is, the less people there will be to pay for taxpayer funded elements? Less people to do all the jobs that have to be done in society? Less people to care for an aging population? There are countries who are already feeling the effects of this because of low birth rates. If the world just stopped reproducing right now, we'd be in a terrible state. We need to replace ourselves, it's one of the most base parts of being human and it worries me how, as time goes on, more and more people than ever say that they don't want children, not even one. I get it if it's for financial reasons but when it's stuff connected to environmental concerns and overpopulation, they just seem like totally invalid reasons. There's far bigger risks to the environment and over-population should really only be measured on a country-by-country basis and what's relevant within that country.