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.
They have more kids but it is far from a financial boon.
BS. The more kids they have, the greater the public assistance benefits they get. And they KNOW that. Limit public assistance so that children don't yield an increase in benefits.
The global fertility rate is 2.4. The poorest countries, with no safety net/ social welfare have the highest birth rates in excess of 6, while wealthy countries with safety nets/ social welfare have the lowest fertility rates.
This is not unique to the US. The fertility rates within the developed world have plummeted to record lows.
Is there a need for a replacement level population , given technology substitution/ industrial robotics?
The gist of the article is Americans aren't having children because they don't have the money for them. If you look at the list, the majority of reasons have to do with the financial aspects. It's sad that in a country as wealthy as the US, adults can't afford to reproduce. There is no subsidized childcare, no family leave benefits, and no universal healthcare. When women take time off work to raise their babies, their earning power suffers long term. Or if they stay home, they aren't bringing in money, so finances are strained when families need money the most. Or they can't afford the daycare option if they work. It's a no-win situation.
Thanks for posting that. I have reached my limit with the NYT, and so I could not read the article, but that is what I suspected.
(Btw, I wish that people who post links would also post a short summary of what the link said -- like SoobySnacks did above -- for those who cannot access the link!)
Women have been taught that money and career is more important than a family. They have their priorities backward. They should have a family FIRST and then focus on career. But no feminist will ever admit that, as she scurries off to IVF treatment after 3 years of trying to get pregnant.
Thereby increasing the percent of GDP the US pays for health care. Infertility treatment in its various forms is very expensive.
The global fertility rate is 2.4. The poorest countries, with no safety net/ social welfare have the highest birth rates in excess of 6, while wealthy countries with safety nets/ social welfare have the lowest fertility rates.
This is not unique to the US. The fertility rates within the developed world have plummeted to record lows.
Is there a need for a replacement level population , given technology substitution/ industrial robotics?
Europeans will soon become extinct, Japanese are on the way out. The fertility rates are simply way too low. The Chinese figure this out and removed the one child per couple edict of the 1970s. The Western world is dying.
What is really sad is that those highly educated people that decide not to have children think they are doing the world a favor by committing genetic suicide and not reproducing. How ironic!!!!!!!!!!
Stinks doesn’t it? But evolution only cares about mere survival. Evolution doesn’t reward what is “good,” it rewards what good at surviving.
In an environment where knowledge is painful and ignorance is bliss, the stupid people will outbreed the smart people. Evolution 101. It’s simply too painful (and expensive) to be smart in today’s world.
I've also seen comments from married women who have gone in for public assistance told to get divorced because they would be eligible for more public money. So public assistance perpetuates single motherhood.
Because they have been indoctrinated that family is detrimental to financial status, and the financial status is the ultimate goal.
What you love becomes your life. For most its money and lack of personal responsibility for others. They don't want to be accountable for anyone but themselves and do not want to compromise any aspect of their lives. (As an elder relative used to say: People who choose to not have kids are basically selfish. And it sounds harsh but it's true.)
For those who marry in their 20s and get an earlier start ... it is 100% financially doable as they are paying expenses for 1 unit instead of 2 from the very beginning of their adult lives. Since marriage has been destroyed as an option (because family has been indoctrinated as bad) people in their 20s have a ridiculous amount of unnecessary expenses.
That is the biggest load of BS I have heard on these forums, and I hear a lot of it. Not choosing to have kids is one of the least selfish things a person can do. There are endless threads posted RE people who have kids they can't afford and how how unfair it is that American taxpayers must support them. Then you post the exact opposite. People should have kids they might not want because if they don't they're selfish How about they have the choice to do what they think works for them in their lives?
There are multiple valid reasons people wouldn't have them: they can't afford them, a totally selfless reason, the world is a violent, scary place and people would rather not have kids in this environment, climate change has caused the world to be unsafe due to natural disasters, their own health issues, financial insecurity for the next generation, the list goes on. . .
And once again, with a 50% divorce rate that people conveniently ignore when they argue this same point, marriage is no guarantee of future financial security. Even with two incomes it's very difficult to afford kids nowadays. Besides, what if one's spouse is a substance abuser? Or violent? Or a cheater? Or the economy crashes and burns and the partner loses their lucrative job? Etc. . .
The gist of the article is Americans aren't having children because they don't have the money for them. If you look at the list, the majority of reasons have to do with the financial aspects. It's sad that in a country as wealthy as the US, adults can't afford to reproduce. There is no subsidized childcare, no family leave benefits, and no universal healthcare. When women take time off work to raise their babies, their earning power suffers long term. Or if they stay home, they aren't bringing in money, so finances are strained when families need money the most. Or they can't afford the daycare option if they work. It's a no-win situation.
Yep. Add to the bolded above that wages are stagnant, and you have a recipe for a low birth rate.
But we don't have the money to take care of our citizens. The one percent and corporations, who were already awash in record profits, NEEDED MORE MONEY! Because, apparently, they will never have enough.
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.
How about they have the choice to do what they think works for them in their lives? 
