US fertility rate lowest ever recorded

At least there's some good news in this time of wage stagnation, terrorism and the threat of a Trump administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/us-lowest-fertility-rate/

(CNN)The US fertility rate fell to the lowest point since record keeping started more than a century ago, according to statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 1909, the government began keeping track of what's called the fertility rate. The general fertility rate is the number of births out of 1,000 women between the ages of 15 to 44.

In the first three months of 2016, the fertility rate in the US fell to the lowest level. The rate was 59.8 births per 1,000 women.

The first quarter of 2015 had seen similarly low rates at 60 births per 1,000 women.

The US fertility rate has been in a steady decline since the post-World War II baby boom. Back at its height in 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women.

The latest quarterly CDC data also indicate the larger pattern of women having babies later in life.

As birth rates increased among women in their 30s and 40s, the rate among teenagers and women in their 20s dropped.

Another report by the CDC in January found that the age of mothers rose in the United States. The average age when women had their first child increased from 24.9 in 2000 to 26.3 in 2014.

What this means for US population

Although the fertility rate is decreasing, that doesn't necessarily mean the US population is going to shrink. The rate of growth may be slower, but the population is still expected to increase.

The U.S. Census Bureau took the falling fertility rate into account and still projected that the population would go from 319 million in 2014 to reach 400 million by 2051.

--------------------
"[GFG's pregnancy is] kind of like at the stables where that one dumb, ugly-ass mare broke out of her corral one day and got herself screwed by the equally fugly colt that was due to be gelded the same afternoon."- Shiny

If we want wages to rise, we can't keep importing no-skill/low-wage people from third world shitholes. Labor is a supply and demand equation like anything else. On top of that, the people we do need around are people who share our collective values. Those from shithole Islamic nations often do not. They do not respect free speech and expression. They believe that being gay should be a crime; in fact gays are routinely executed in these nations. They are extremely pro-breeding. They oppose virtually any kind of rights for women. Political rights and rights of the accused are virtually nonexistent. Human rights are not recognized as being important. Secular laws take a back seat to theocratic rule. Threats and intimidation are levied upon those who do not subscribe to the official religion.

Are there reasons to dislike Trump? Yes, and plenty of them. But it's important to recognize that the opposition wants MORE people, not fewer. And the people that they promise to let in, ideologically speaking, couldn't be further from the child free community. And the opposition, historically speaking, gains their voting base by giving away "free" stuff. Who do you suppose will pay for these immigrants health care? Schooling? Welfare? Wear and tear on the infrastructure?

And in the future, we will not need vast numbers of people to run factories or farms. Without population reduction we are heading toward an America with an enormous underclass. And we will be expected to support them as they continue the cycle of unchecked breeding.

Irritating that they call it the "fertility rate". It's not: it's the breeding rate. Fertility is whether you can, not if you do.

S54, I agree with you that the underclass tends to breed far too much--among other reasons, that ensures that their numbers increase. The War on Poverty was a colossal failure; although it had good intentions, the percentage of people living in poverty is still basically what it was in the mid-1960's. Paying poor people to reproduce--what could possibly go wrong with that?

I'd argue that religious fundies of any stripe encourage rampant breeding among their followers. While Islam is a big problem in that regard, so is fundy Christianity. This is the major reason I'm no longer a Catholic, btw. And Christian fundies have an unfortunate influence on U.S. politics.

That said, the birth rate needs to keep falling. There just won't be enough Wal-Marts to give everybody jobs by 2051.

It takes a child to raze a village.

It is a proven fact that the average IQ in developed countries is increasing. Now we learn that breeding rate is decreasing. Can't be a coincidence

If you think that it's a good idea to give Donald Trump the nuclear codes, then go for it. Clinton is a far from perfect candidate, but I'll take her flawed agenda over Trump's loose-cannon personality every day of the year. Not to mention the fact that Trump is anti-abortion and will put forced-birther Supreme Court justices on the bench.

Quote
cj
S54, I agree with you that the underclass tends to breed far too much--among other reasons, that ensures that their numbers increase. The War on Poverty was a colossal failure; although it had good intentions, the percentage of people living in poverty is still basically what it was in the mid-1960's. Paying poor people to reproduce--what could possibly go wrong with that?

I'd argue that religious fundies of any stripe encourage rampant breeding among their followers. While Islam is a big problem in that regard, so is fundy Christianity. This is the major reason I'm no longer a Catholic, btw. And Christian fundies have an unfortunate influence on U.S. politics.

That said, the birth rate needs to keep falling. There just won't be enough Wal-Marts to give everybody jobs by 2051.

In no way do I encourage religious fundamentalism of any kind, nor do I endorse the mixing of religion and secular politics. But I'll take living with Christian fundies in a land governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights any day of the week over a land that lets radical Muslims in the door and prides itself on open borders.

On top of that we've got people with Masters and Doctoral degrees who are out of work. We do not need more people. And as automation increases, the caliber of person that's currently immigrating here becomes less and less employable.

Quote
skyeyes
If you think that it's a good idea to give Donald Trump the nuclear codes, then go for it. Clinton is a far from perfect candidate, but I'll take her flawed agenda over Trump's loose-cannon personality every day of the year. Not to mention the fact that Trump is anti-abortion and will put forced-birther Supreme Court justices on the bench.

So why hasn't the SCOTUS revisited the Roe v Wade case? We've had plenty of justices nominated by GOP presidents. Didn't happen under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43. I don't think abortion laws will change in any significant way, in our lifetime.

I am thinking Trump will be putting pro-liars on the bench, he is a wealthy man, who wants more poor to control. The guy is a loose cannon and I know pro-liar relatives who are voting his ticket thinking he will go nuclear against abortion. He may be lying to calm the fundies down, but no one will know until he is elected.

A world population simulator- watch as births outpace deaths at a ratio of nearly 3:1, mainly in India and China. It's like VH-1's Pop-Up Video but much more depressing.

http://worldbirthsanddeaths.com

--------------------
"[GFG's pregnancy is] kind of like at the stables where that one dumb, ugly-ass mare broke out of her corral one day and got herself screwed by the equally fugly colt that was due to be gelded the same afternoon."- Shiny

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
skyeyes
If you think that it's a good idea to give Donald Trump the nuclear codes, then go for it. Clinton is a far from perfect candidate, but I'll take her flawed agenda over Trump's loose-cannon personality every day of the year. Not to mention the fact that Trump is anti-abortion and will put forced-birther Supreme Court justices on the bench.

So why hasn't the SCOTUS revisited the Roe v Wade case? We've had plenty of justices nominated by GOP presidents. Didn't happen under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43. I don't think abortion laws will change in any significant way, in our lifetime.

SCOTUS has revisited Roe v. Wade a few times. There were two cases which many thought could overturn Roe but instead put a few dents in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services was a 1989 case and, more importantly,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey was a 1992 case which established the "undue burden" standard used in other cases ever since.

Justice Kennedy, today's swing justice, was a key author of the plurality decision in both cases.

If Trump gets to replace Scalia, it won't change the Court from its conservative leaning before he died. But the big fear, one I share, is that he could get to replace at least one of the two aging liberals on the Court, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. I am sick and tired of the many awful, rightward 5-4 decisions from this Court and to get Scalia replaced by a liberal or even center-left justice would put an end to that, in addition to seeing Ginsburg and/or Breyer safely replaced by younger liberals.

ETA: After Webster but before Planned Parenthood, the Court underwent some big changes. Bush 41 replaced liberal icons Bill Brennan and Thurgood Marshall with David Souter and Clarence Thomas, so the anti-abortion crowd thought Planned Parenthood would be the end of Roe. But Souter turned out to not be the conservative he was expected to be (he ended up being a closet liberal), and he would be part of the fractured plurality which upheld the essence of Roe. Thomas, of course, has turned out to be the conservative disaster I feared he would be, and despite being on the Court for 25 years, he is only 68!

The lower birth rate is definitely good news--smarter people typically have fewer children. Could this be a ray of hope that people are starting to see the light, and how it's catastrophic to keep adding more people to the coming environmental disaster?

Be prepared for a barrage of "news" stories where a bunch of think tank "experts" (who are paid with public funds) start recommending more taxpayer funded bullshit such as moo-ternity leave, paid leave for fathers, daycare, etc.

I agree with you, yurble: it's not a fertility rate. It's a reproduction rate. Totally different words with different definitions, and they're using the wrong one.

People bag on millenials for all sorts of things, but I've got to hand it to the younger generation: their reaction to the shitty job market has been to have far, far fewer children than the boomers or generation X. They're also less interested in getting married and are more likely to rent than buy a home. The economic collapse a few years ago showed 'em that the lifescript is not important, maybe.

Because a lot of millenials are reacting in what I think is a sensible way (no babies until things improve, or maybe no babies at all), I predict the birth rate will continue to drop. Much to my relief. MOAR BIRTH CONTROL!

We are a bit ahead, here the media has been bitching for two years that Finland's fertility rate has dropped so much and there won't be enough tax payers to support the economy and old people. Tax payers (read white Finnish baybees) as there are also lots of immigrants with good qualifications but no jobs or working in cleaning.

I see some inconsistencies with this logic: so breed more people to support old people - what happens when these kids will be old themselves - breed even more people? Not enough taxpayers but have these people wondered about enough jobs? Because these jobs are becoming scarce and if there are, are usually low-wage or temporary.

Scapegoating millennials because they are not breeding is plain stupid. People realized that the future looks bleak and they stop at one/two kids or none at all. It's the smartest thing to do. There are enough people anyways and immigration will become more common. People are moving nowadays much more than they used to as there are many more possibilities regarding traveling and information.

Quote
blackpearl
We are a bit ahead, here the media has been bitching for two years that Finland's fertility rate has dropped so much and there won't be enough tax payers to support the economy and old people. Tax payers (read white Finnish baybees) as there are also lots of immigrants with good qualifications but no jobs or working in cleaning.

I see some inconsistencies with this logic: so breed more people to support old people - what happens when these kids will be old themselves - breed even more people? Not enough taxpayers but have these people wondered about enough jobs? Because these jobs are becoming scarce and if there are, are usually low-wage or temporary.

Scapegoating millennials because they are not breeding is plain stupid. People realized that the future looks bleak and they stop at one/two kids or none at all. It's the smartest thing to do. There are enough people anyways and immigration will become more common. People are moving nowadays much more than they used to as there are many more possibilities regarding traveling and information.

Those who espouse breeding for the sake of preserving future entitlements are in essence stating that the best way to end a pyramid scheme is to add on more layers.

I'm writing in mass generalities here, but it seems like the millenials are at least waking up to the idea that the 21st century isn't going to be such a great one to live in, on many fronts. The problems we face are massive and complex, and they won't be solved by adding billions more to the planet. The jobs that started when a person got out of college and ended with them departing the workforce with a pension are few and far between. There will be even fewer in the future.

The baby boomers, on the other hand, are deluding themselves if they think that the millenials are going to be willing to absorb massive tax increases to keep entitlement programs afloat--programs which by the way the millenials will never, ever benefit from in the way that their parents and grandparents are currently benefitting. And before they point the finger at the younger generation they should look in the mirror and own the fact that they voted into office politicians who championed tax cuts and underfunding of their entitlements for decades.

Overpopulation is a very real threat not only the globe and United States - I live in a state where the population is totally and completely out of control.

The entire northern part of this nation is starting to migrate down here and WHY. There isn't fuck to do in FloriTard. Disneyland is overpriced and overrated, Sea World has a VERY bad reputation insofar as animal treatment goes - the beaches are overcrowded, the Gulf is polluted, the roads are so crowded there are massive accidents every single fucking day where I live - at some point this bullshit needs to stop.

Studio54...I agree with you about social security. Hell I'm not even a millennial (mid to lat gen x depending on what cutoff you count), and I am counting on getting NADA from social security in my old age. That's why I have been busting my butt to make sure I have other savings. Mr Random is on the same page.

Frankly, boomers came out swinging at every generation after them. Xers were bagged on for taking too long to join the rat race and being too insular and fragmented. It is likely an old problem...each group thinking it has the answers when sometimes they don't due to changing cultural realities.

One thing has always held, though: people are always suspicious of those who don't have kids. We are in the middle of a birth control renaissance of sorts, yet using it to avoid parenthood entirely is still not.okay.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
The baby boomers, on the other hand, are deluding themselves if they think that the millenials are going to be willing to absorb massive tax increases to keep entitlement programs afloat--programs which by the way the millenials will never, ever benefit from in the way that their parents and grandparents are currently benefitting. And before they point the finger at the younger generation they should look in the mirror and own the fact that they voted into office politicians who championed tax cuts and underfunding of their entitlements for decades.

A big part of my taxes go to the so-called pension fund whether i like it or not. The problem is that i might never get to enjoy any pension when/if i retire. And i say "if" because, at least in my country, the retirement age is increasing. By the time i retire it might be that the retirement age would have reached 70 years old. I don't even know if i live to that age or if i'll even be able bodied to work. Or if i have a job because if you are over 40 here, your chances to get a job decrease drastically.

And i really hate these people who are so freaked out and blame the CF that "who is going to pay taxes, my chyyld will pay your pension!" Well dear breeders, i also pay taxes so that you and your kid can enjoy "free" maternity and parenthood bonuses, prenatal care, calving, healthcare, kindergarden, school etc. I will never benefit from these services anyways.

@BlackPearl: Don't feel bad. Our retirement age here in USA is 67 for anyone born after 1960. You can bet safely that it will be raised to 70 before too long. Paying high taxes? Welcome to the USofA - the land of taxes. I know many people who graduated colleges after the year of 2008, they were not able to find the kind of employment that their parents had. What do they do? Some start businesses others are self employed. Guess what? They pay more taxes than those people at regular jobs because of how our system is set up. The way is it now, employer pays 50% of social security as well as they pay payroll tax. Those who are self employed, they essentially pay double, to cover what employer pays and to cover what employee pays. Life is good here - for those in Hollywood. For the rest of us, we have the same challenges that everyone else does.

@Techie: To be honest i wouldn't mind to retire at 70 but i then i really want to do a job i like, to be in fairly good health to do it and the most important, to still be alive. I would like to keep myself active in old age.

Here is the same with taxes but even if you are an employee in a regular job you pay lots of taxes. We have a progressive taxation system so the more you earn, the more you pay tax. Those taxes come back to you in the form of healthcare, all kinds of benefits for calving and kids, education or unemployment. I need to mention that even state healthcare is not completely free, you still have to pay when you go to the doctor but it's cheaper than in a private hospital.

I can't say too much about self-employment here as i'm not self-employed but from what i know the taxes are almost the same. The biggest problem is that if you are self-employed and your spouse loses his/her job, the employment office won't give them any money because it is considered you have a job and can support them. Well, if you don't earn enough for two, you both are kind of screwed.

Same situation here with the jobs: most of them are part-time or on a limited period of time which doesn't offer opportunities at all. Me and DH cannot even get a bank loan because we have temporary work contracts. If this continues many of us won't even be able to buy a house or an apartment.

Quote
blackpearl


And i really hate these people who are so freaked out and blame the CF that "who is going to pay taxes, my chyyld will pay your pension!" Well dear breeders, i also pay taxes so that you and your kid can enjoy "free" maternity and parenthood bonuses, prenatal care, calving, healthcare, kindergarden, school etc. I will never benefit from these services anyways.

Hence, the problem with socialism and socialist programs in general. As Margaret Thatcher once said, sooner or later you just run out of other people's money.

USER PAYS is the only fair way to go when it comes to non-essential services.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
As Margaret Thatcher once said, sooner or later you just run out of other people's money.

This will happen not because there aren't enough people but there aren't enough jobs. And also some taxpayer money seem to just disappear into a black hole.

But with lower fertility rates i won't hold my breath that such benefits will be cut. On the contrary, whenever there are some declining fertility rates, it seems that money for breeding appear miraculously out of nowhere. I wrote here about some municipalities in my country offering bonuses for breeding but it made so happy they failed as they didn't even increase births. Overall, we have one of the most generous European country when it comes to breeding benefits and still birth rates are falling. It seems to me that people are just not interested anymore in having tons of kids.

I do agree though with help for families struck by tragedy as nobody asks to have an accident, a death in the family or to be fired but quite many people are abusing those benefits which turn into entitlements. I was just reading about a SHAM, who worked from home, had a full salary and social office lowered her maternity benefits because it was decided she made enough money from her work. She started bitching that it's not fair because she has a chyyyld! Well, you have a full salary why do you need maternity pay? I thought that was for SHAMs who didn't work at all.

I like Florida, and I wouldn't say there is any more or less to do than there is anywhere else, in terms of residency. I imagine Parisians don't find Paris as romantic as foreigners, Brazilians don't find Brazil as exotic as foreigners, etc. Having said that, I DO want other people to stop coming here. Everything I dislike about Florida can be blamed on population in some way or another.

Every single day I see people who either a. Drive 10-15MPH below the speed limit, B. Drive below the speed limit, but accelerate to prevent you from changing lanes / passing, C. Refuse to use their turn signals, D. Cut across multiple lanes, forcing you to hit your brakes to avoid T-boning them, or E. Some combination of the above.

Gas is pretty expensive. If my memory of high school economics is right, that is because there are more people demanding gas than competitive companies supplying it. Theoretically, If I am the single patron of Store, and my money keeps the business going, the owners of Store will be more desperate for my money then say Subway, who won't feel the loss of one customer. But I am digressing to the choir.

There are lots of shrieky, ill-behaved beast spawn. Enough said.

So please, any lurking moos and breeders, stay out of Florida. We don't want you or the plethora of problems you bring with your germ vectors.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.