Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting. I've been seeing a LOT more families with three, and even four kids. Not sure how many of their mothers have a PhD, but there seems to be a trend away from the two-kid family.
I have four kids, but my first (at age 22) was a surprise, as was my last one at age 40.
I have been noticing the same trend.
My mother had four kids, her first at 19 and her last at 40. Her and dad married when she was 16 and he was 25.
They're just calculating the mean, lol. If it was 1.5 it'd just mean having 1 or 2 babies would be the most typical.
TFR is average, not the mean. A woman is averaging 1.8 kids. That means 5 women are having 9 kids between them over their lifetime (4 will have 2 children, 1 will have 1 child or 1 woman will have 3 kids, 3 women will have 2 children, and 1 will be childless, or any other combination ).
TFR already accounts for kids regardless if you have 1 kid at 12 and the other at 45.
Study did not say and one wonders if there is some correlation between older women, especially white with college and or post graduate degrees, and fertility treatments that have bumped up the number of viable births.
Indeed better prenatal healthcare has made elderly primigravida not only possible but a safe option.
You look at not just celebrity mothers and others with twins or multiple births and usually it is the result of fertility treatments and or surrogacy. Which also explains why so many gay men are fathers of twins or multiples.
Downside to having children in one's late 30's or well into 40's or even later is the parent or parents will be eligible for Social Security before the kid graduates college or maybe even high school.
From one's forties through fifties normally are prime earning years, the period when most are racking up a bulk of the assets/wealth or whatever they will be living upon in retirement/senior years. Children require substantial investments of time and money. Thus it is going to be interesting to see if this trend has legs and or if it begins to widely affect various labor/employment/social norms in the USA.
United States is one of the few western (if not only) industrial developed nation without a national mandate for maternity/family leave.
Study did not say and one wonders if there is some correlation between older women, especially white with college and or post graduate degrees, and fertility treatments that have bumped up the number of viable births.
Indeed better prenatal healthcare has made elderly primigravida not only possible but a safe option.
You look at not just celebrity mothers and others with twins or multiple births and usually it is the result of fertility treatments and or surrogacy. Which also explains why so many gay men are fathers of twins or multiples.
Downside to having children in one's late 30's or well into 40's or even later is the parent or parents will be eligible for Social Security before the kid graduates college or maybe even high school.
From one's forties through fifties normally are prime earning years, the period when most are racking up a bulk of the assets/wealth or whatever they will be living upon in retirement/senior years. Children require substantial investments of time and money. Thus it is going to be interesting to see if this trend has legs and or if it begins to widely affect various labor/employment/social norms in the USA.
United States is one of the few western (if not only) industrial developed nation without a national mandate for maternity/family leave.
Oh, bull. If you're 39 when your child is born, you're 57 whens/he graduates from high school. Plenty of time left to work. At 49 at time of birth (which is more unusual) you'd be 67. Current age to retire on full SS is 66, so you'd be one year into retirement, if you so chose. You don't have to collect SS until you're 70.
Yes, meaning you're more likely to have enough money to put the child through college w/o him/her racking up enormous loans.
Yet we have one of the highest birth rates in the developed world.
Oh, bull. If you're 39 when your child is born, you're 57 whens/he graduates from high school. Plenty of time left to work. At 49 at time of birth (which is more unusual) you'd be 67. Current age to retire on full SS is 66, so you'd be one year into retirement, if you so chose. You don't have to collect SS until you're 70.
Yes, meaning you're more likely to have enough money to put the child through college w/o him/her racking up enormous loans.
Yet we have one of the highest birth rates in the developed world.
No, it isn't "BULL", so just knock it off.
Just look around at the number of unemployed or under employed persons fifty or older that cannot find work, or anything that pays nearly what they did before being terminated.
The only way someone will have "more than enough money to put a child through...." when they are in their 40's or older is if they are already moderately to very well off, and or simply aren't looking at the economics of things.
Just look around at the number of unemployed or under employed persons fifty or older that cannot find work, or anything that pays nearly what they did before being terminated.
The only way someone will have "more than enough money to put a child through...." when they are in their 40's or older is if they are already moderately to very well off, and or simply aren't looking at the economics of things.
It was a figure of speech.
So now you're going from "(f)rom one's forties through fifties normally are prime earning years, the period when most are racking up a bulk of the assets/wealth or whatever they will be living upon in retirement/senior years" to "(j)ust look around at the number of unemployed or under employed persons fifty or older that cannot find work . . ."
Yes, age discrimination is an issue. My local paper just did an article about that. According to them, it starts at age 40, meaning unless you have your last kid at age 22 or younger, you face that problem when your kids are in college (by that reckoning).
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-18-2018 at 06:02 PM..
Interesting. I've been seeing a LOT more families with three, and even four kids. Not sure how many of their mothers have a PhD, but there seems to be a trend away from the two-kid family.
I have four kids, but my first (at age 22) was a surprise, as was my last one at age 40.
More people are dual income no kids households as well, so it is an "average."
So more kids are being born simply because technology has made it physically possible for women who have put off having children until their 40s to conceive and carry a child to term. Seems quite an odd and unhealthy trend. How many of those kids are born with problems due to the mother's advanced age?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
