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.
I am part of the 1981-1996 birth cohort known as the Millennials. The mating environment for Millennials is pretty bleak. There are huge surpluses of single men relative to single women in most major metros in this age bracket.
Can you elaborate on that? What do you think is going on? Is it that single female Millennials are marrying outside their age cohort? Something else?
Can you elaborate on that? What do you think is going on? Is it that single female Millennials are marrying outside their age cohort? Something else?
Here in Denver, the imbalance approaches 10% across the 20-50 demographic and there are no good explanations.
I'm also not sure that would have much to do with a fertility rate, since women are the critical factor here and they have the odds of a suitable/desired partner loaded in their favor.
China needs them a lot worse than we do. their policy of one child per couple resulted in a lot of families killing off girl babaies becuase they wanted a boy. Now they have a crap ton of boys and not enough women. to make things worse, many of their people are chosing not to marry/procreate. Now they ahve a baby shortage. As their huge population ages, there will be too few people of working age to support the elderly. They are facing an unprecedented economic crises (unless they get rid of some of the older people).
Much of Europe has a similar problem to the United states. Perhaps even more pronounced.
Fertile women of childbearing age may be the next hot world commodity. (Meaning attracting them to your country, not buying and selling women directly).
LOL! The fertility rate is not tied to the actual fertility of females, but to the output, so to speak. Women are just choosing not to have children in low fertility countries. In some cases, the low rate may be caused in part by women waiting until they are older (when fertility is lower), but that is still a choice.
Importing fertile women to this country will not help one iota, because they will still need to have good heath care, paid maternity leave, and either a husband who supports them while they stay home, or they must have adequate day care. Our support system is not favorable for a higher birth rate. EVEN having said all that, the US has a fertility rate of 1.7, which compares favorably with Scandinavian countries, which have more favorable support systems such as paid maternal leave, health and day care for all, and a low maternal mortality rate.
The only fertility rates that are high are in poor countries, without adequate birth control measures. Having children that you cannot afford leads to poverty. Bottom line for the US is that we choose not to have children.
Already way too many humans. At 7 billion and growing every day, I think we've sufficiently complied with "go forth and multiply and take dominion over the earth". Time to have fewer people. Economic systems will just have to adapt.
Can you elaborate on that? What do you think is going on? Is it that single female Millennials are marrying outside their age cohort? Something else?
I suppose one thing could be that there are usually more baby boys born than girls. The ratio is 105 boys born for every 100 girls born (unless you include countries that abort baby girls so the family has more boys, then it's 107 boys for every 100 girls). I am just speculating, but in the past, more young men died due to wars and disease but that's largely a thing of the past for Americans. So there are more boys living to be young adults. It's not an overwhelming percentage, but it's enough.
I suppose one thing could be that there are usually more baby boys born than girls. The ratio is 105 boys born for every 100 girls born (unless you include countries that abort baby girls so the family has more boys, then it's 107 boys for every 100 girls). I am just speculating, but in the past, more young men died due to wars and disease but that's largely a thing of the past for Americans. So there are more boys living to be young adults. It's not an overwhelming percentage, but it's enough.
Well, that may be true globally but the US rate has been around 98% - 98 boys born per 100 girls - for quite some time, with only small percentage shifts since the boom. ETA: Wrong again, Whatsit - that's population ratio overall.
There is, of course, a whopping shift at the other end, with women starting to significantly outnumber men past 60.
As a Millennial this doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm in my early 30's and most people I know are only just starting to get married ... assuming they are even able to find someone that wants to get married. Kids? Yeah, no. I only have one friend in my social circle with more than two kids. A few with two, a few with one, and a whole bunch with none. Having a child is expensive, having two or more kids is more expensive ... and it's even more expensive in a high COL place like Long Island. It costs an average of $233,000 to raise a child from birth to 17 and that doesn't factor in the cost of college tuition (which many parents pay at least part of nowadays) or the reality that kids these days tend to live at home well into their 20s and beyond. As I've said previously on this forum, I am open to marriage but I'm not too keen on kids.
That said, maybe this declining birth rate is a good thing, the reality is that we are headed towards a post-jobs world. Less mouths to feed and less jobs to provide are both good things in the world to come.
Well, that may be true globally but the US rate has been around 98% - 98 boys born per 100 girls - for quite some time, with only small percentage shifts since the boom.
There is, of course, a whopping shift at the other end, with women starting to significantly outnumber men past 60.
Are you sure you are looking at the birth ratio (not just the sex ratio which does skew female since women live longer)? The data I find says more boys than girls are born in the US. Then again, what I am looking at is almost a year old (and is based on 2017 data) so there might be newer data. This data says 105 boys to 100 girls (and that seems to be consistent since 1962 if you use the sliding graphic to see the birth ration for different years).
Are you sure you are looking at the birth ratio (not just the sex ratio which does skew female since women live longer)?
My bad. Nothing like moving the goalposts around.
The real ratio that matters here is across the child-rearing ages (including social acceptance) of perhaps 18-45. I can't find a convenient summary and I'll be arsed if I'll sit here and do a bunch of calculations, but yes, males have a predominance across that range.
It's a social economic problem. Plenty of poor people still pop them like rich people changing cars. The problem is more of a social issue as marriage is on the decline and fewer younger people buying homes and starting families. This is a reflection of that. Meanwhile you look at all the immigrants moving in, some got 3 or more kids sharing like a 2BR apt. Most of the unfetter births are coming from deeply religious immigrants.
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.
