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.
From my link, my allowable three sentences: "The rate of births among women ages 15 to 44 ticked up 1% from 2013 to 2014. That's the first increase since 2007, the beginning of the recession, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The 3.98 million total births in 2014 were the most since 2010."
So yeah, both birth RATE and absolute number of births going up.
I don't think anyone expects the birthrate to equal that of the Boomers, although I will say that most of us had 2 kids, with a few outliers having 3 or more. One child families became more mainstream, too, as did having no kids. You may be too young to remember this, but we Boomers were going to produce a "baby bust", too, but it didn't work out that way. Sociologists love to prognosticate based on flimsy evidence.
Having worked in pediatrics for most of my career, I have a lot of pretty good anecdotal observations. Now granted, I saw people who were having kids, not those who chose to be childless, but most of our families right up to the moment of my retirement this August had about the same number.
Births in 2014 were up to early Baby Boom levels: Baby Boomers - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com " In 1947, another 3.8 million babies were born; 3.9 million were born in 1952; and more than 4 million were born every year from 1954 until 1964, when the boom finally tapered off. "
I'll add that roughly one quarter of births are to hispanic parents (white non-hispanic births are roughly half of newborns in the US). The millennial - boomer difference may be larger if looking at white non-hispanics only. Don't feel like going through numbers in too much detail.
As for VMT, the projections of it peaked was a poor prognostic. But the typical state DOT projection that it would continue rising at the rate of the 80s or 90s isn't a reasonable one, either.
From my link, my allowable three sentences: "The rate of births among women ages 15 to 44 ticked up 1% from 2013 to 2014. That's the first increase since 2007, the beginning of the recession, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The 3.98 million total births in 2014 were the most since 2010."
So yeah, both birth RATE and absolute number of births going up.
While the birth rate and number of births increased, the article in question specifically tied that uptick to an economic rebound, not an overall change in habits. It does not offer evidence for anything more than that. That does not suggest there won't be an overall exogenous uptick, only that this article cannot be used as evidence of any such thing.
As for VMT, the projections of it peaked was a poor prognostic. But the typical state DOT projection that it would continue rising at the rate of the 80s or 90s isn't a reasonable one, either.
Exactly! State DOTs have been vastly overestimating the VMTs for four-ish decades. And these projections, combined with flimsy valuations of the benefits of projects (eg, placing a value on all the seconds saved by commuters due to a given widening over the full projected lifetime of that widening) have been used as evidence of a need for big, very expensive new construction. X billions of dollars saved by a faster commute, Y number of daily boardings. Poorly supported projections refuted by past project's outcomes at the opportunity cost of more cost efficient, smaller, more numerous interventions and tactics.
I'll add that roughly one quarter of births are to hispanic parents (white non-hispanic births are roughly half of newborns in the US). The millennial - boomer difference may be larger if looking at white non-hispanics only. Don't feel like going through numbers in too much detail.
As for VMT, the projections of it peaked was a poor prognostic. But the typical state DOT projection that it would continue rising at the rate of the 80s or 90s isn't a reasonable one, either.
And there is evidence that Hispanic birth rates are similar to that of everyone else, once they've been in the US a generation. Like you, I don't feel like spending a lot of time on Google looking this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
While the birth rate and number of births increased, the article in question specifically tied that uptick to an economic rebound, not an overall change in habits. It does not offer evidence for anything more than that. That does not suggest there won't be an overall exogenous uptick, only that this article cannot be used as evidence of any such thing.
Regarding that particular article, yes. I was more responding to a post about an alleged "baby bust" among the Millennials. Anecdotally, the Millennials I know are almost all having or planning to have kids. And I stand by what I said about demographers, social scientists, etc. They tend to make assumptions about birth rates based on flimsy evidence. Did you look at that "Baby Bust" article from 1977? In 1977, the oldest of the Boomers were only 31, the youngest still in their teens. Yet such seers were predicting a long-term baby bust, when just the opposite happened. By the early 80s, maternity wards were getting busy again.
Did you look at that "Baby Bust" article from 1977?
Hadn't at the time. Have now and it is an interesting picture of 1970s demography. In fairness, no-one could have foreseen our advanced levels of automation and NAFTA and the rise of China and how they would play in to the flat-lining of wages, or how CoL (healthcare, education) would vastly outpace inflation, to say nothing of outpacing wage growth outside of the top strata. Their folly was overconfidence in their distant predictions.
Thanks for clarifying, guys. Apparently the "baby bust" among millennials has been somewhat over hyped. Although our country and our cities are definitely changing due to immigration and the increasing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."
Hadn't at the time. Have now and it is an interesting picture of 1970s demography. In fairness, no-one could have foreseen our advanced levels of automation and NAFTA and the rise of China and how they would play in to the flat-lining of wages, or how CoL (healthcare, education) would vastly outpace inflation, to say nothing of outpacing wage growth outside of the top strata. Their folly was overconfidence in their distant predictions.
True, but the tide started turning about three years later re: birth rates. In five years (1982) the "Echo-Boomers" as those babies were called at the time, were crowding the maternity wards. Someone, or I should say someones, most likely "Silent Generation" members thought we Boomers didn't want kids. We showed 'em!
At the very least, the USA Today piece contained no data that said anything of the sort. Specifically, it said:
And no one seems to be answering the why questions. Why should the Millennial birthrate match that of their parents? Why should VMT even keep pace with, much less increase faster than the increase in population? On C-D, I've seen some very impassioned defenses of birthrates and VMT as if these are moral matters instead of just demographic and statistical issues. Frankly, I don't get it; if the numbers go up or down, speed up or decelerate, then they are what they are and are interesting academically but not philosophically.
That does seem to be your argument though. Birth rate is up in 2014. That's a fact. Pointing out that fact doesn't really have anything to do with why birthrates have to be higher for Millenials than they were when the Boomers were having kids. I mean, maybe you could point to where the argument is being made as to why Millenials have to have the same total fertility rate as their parents did, but it really just appears to be that you've made a strawman argument because for whatever reason you have an impassioned opinion that you feel the fact that birth rate was up in 2014 threatens. Similar with VMT. The fact is that VMT per capita is up. As much as this fact may be challenging to your beliefs, it's just a fact. Nothing to do with why. It just is. The why it is just conjecture. I'd say it's the combination of the better labor market and cheap gas but regardless of why I think VMT per capita is up, it is up.
I keep pointing back to the overall trend. I haven't denied that it's gone up recently, but I do deny that uptick necessarily supports an overall, ongoing increase. I deny it, not because of belief, but because the data doesn't support that view.
Do you have evidence that there is an ongoing trend that VMT is accelerating faster than the driving-age population is growing? Because that would suggest recent increases are more than just a catching up to the pre-recession, pre-subprime boom trend (ie, the current natural rate) as the economy improves. If you have it, I'd gladly read it. So far, the data I've seen from government agencies suggests an overall flattening of the VMT/cap curve or, at least, no net acceleration of the VMT/cap rate.
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.
