Making babies in the USA
For the second year in a row, the domestic birth rate has fallen. It's now the lowest it's been in a century. More from the Associated Press:
Last spring's report, on births in 2008, showed an overall drop but a surprising rise in births to women over 40, who may have felt they were running out of time to have children and didn't want to delay despite the bad economy.
Women postponing having children because of careers also may find they have trouble conceiving, said Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington-based demographic research group.
"For some of those women, they're going to find themselves in their mid-40s where it's going to be hard to have the number of children they want," he said.
Don't blame me -- I had one of my babies in 2009. On the older mom thing, I'm guilty as charged, even if I have several years before I hit 40. Still, compared to the women in my family, I'm an elderly mom. My argument for having children when you're younger is that you simply must have more energy for them then.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
Mollie: I did my part (five kids) and you are too. I appreciate it as I'm approaching retirement age and need lots of workers to pay for my entitlements. [Previous sentence was intended to be ironical].
On a more serious note, one has only to look at the fertility rates of nearly all European countries plus Japan and China (far below replacement rate) to see that their versions of the welfare state will soon crash on the rocks of economic reality. Russia and Japan (as well as several other countries) are already experiencing populaton declines. Mark Steyn's America Alone tells the story far better than I can.
So let's keep those kids coming. My future depends upon them (and so does there's).
May '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
Associated Press:
·
As Rush often points out, the "experts" are always surprised by what is obvious to everyone else. The median age of motherhood continues to rise. No surprise there.
I have nothing against late motherhood. But we really should encourage women to have children in their early 20s. Even that is waiting, in comparison with the vast majority of human history. Biology doesn't change with social standards. Psychological adulthood emerges at the age that society demands.
Obviously, the answer isn't to tell single college-age women to go out and get pregnant. But we can counteract the stigma against women who forego careers and even college to embrace motherhood. The greatest hurdle is perhaps financial. I'm not sure how we can counteract the economy's adjustment to the frequency of dual-income households.
Re: Making babies in the USA
This is true. In my Washington, D.C., area -- where there is no recession or housing slump -- almost all the homes are bought by dual-income households. ANd not just any dual incomes -- the kind of incomes that come from federal employment or lobbying. We are not really able to compete in such an environment . . .
May '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
On the other hand, parents end up relying on their kids for care in old age. Since people live longer these days and need physical help for longer, perhaps late parenthood is fitting.
Caretakers are less likely to get burned out when there's a lot of them. My 92-year-old grandma is looked after by a different child or grandchild every day of the week.
Aug '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
Aaron Miller: On the other hand, parents end up relying on their kids for care in old age.
Yes. That is the dilemma my family faces. My parents had children late, and started needing extra care before their children had children. Once I have kids, who'll care for my parents? My parents are difficult enough that caring for them and an infant is, honestly, frightening (and I'm a weak reed, having several nontrivial health problems myself).
Mollie Hemingway: My argument for having children when you're younger is that you simply must have more energy for them then. ·
This poses a dilemma for women whose youthful health has not been good. Do they wait a few years, hoping their health and energy will improve despite the tolls of time? Or do they have children now, in ill health, betting that the passage of time cannot bring enough recuperation to overcome the ravages of time?
And how ill is too ill to be a good mother?
Re: Making babies in the USA
This is a very Steynian moment. The welfare state infantilizes ordinary adults. The larger the welfare state grows, the more infantilized we become. And infants don't want to have infants -- that would mean growing up and all sorts of icky things. Look for further declines in birthrates unless we manage to roll back Obamacare, etc.
ps: I also did my part: a daughter in 2008.
May '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
I don't know Adam. Brooklyn? One child? Sounds pretty lefty to me. You're liable to remain suspect until you require an over-sized automobile with single-digit gas mileage to transport your family to dine at restaurants with laminate menus. Until then you have to remain under suspicion.
Edited on Aug 27, 2010 at 7:13pmMay '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
"My argument for having children when you're younger is that you simply must have more energy for them then."
I agree... I am an ancient mum and find myself completely exhausted by dinner time.
I had my first at 30 and my second at 36... If I had known what I know now, I would probably have had them earlier and would have seriously considered a third.
And I don't sleep that well either which compounds the matter.
Aug '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
We've also externalized the costs of retirement. People assume that if they save and invest then they have done their part in preparing for retirement. But, if there aren't enough working people around to buy those stocks and produce the profits to pay for those bonds, then those savings are worthless. Unfortunately, when people choose to go childless, the loss is spread out to all of us shifting the balance in favor of not having kids or having just one designer baby.
Aug '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
Am I the only one who sees some psychological or spiritual connection between low birth rates and the feminist abolition of gender roles? It seems obvious to me that the evolutionary purpose of gender roles is to amplify gender differences, therefore making the two sexes more attractive to each other. And the role that is being suppressed with the greatest fervor is the traditionally feminine role, centered around children and the home.
I'm middle aged, and I know a lot of never-marrieds, and a surprising number of intentionally childless married couples. Historically, having children (and starting young) has been almost a reflex, something that practically everyone did without consciously evaluating it against other possible life choices. If the relationship between a man and a woman isn't somehow about gender, this reflex wanes, and the focus of the relationship is more on aspects of life unconnected to gender, like maximizing one's immediate standard of living, finding fulfillment in work, etc.
Re: Making babies in the USA
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
And how ill is too ill to be a good mother? · Aug 27 at 1:44pm
It's a difficult question with no easy answers. Hopefully it will become clear to you in good time.
Aug '10
Re: Making babies in the USA
Mollie Hemingway
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
And how ill is too ill to be a good mother? · Aug 27 at 1:44pm
It's a difficult question with no easy answers. Hopefully it will become clear to you in good time. · Aug 27 at 8:17pm
Thank you for your kind consideration. I'm far from the only young woman to face this predicament, which is why I brought it up. Each individual case is different, I suppose.