Disaster Why Are So Many Americans Choosing to Not Have Children? - It’s probably not selfishness, experts say. Even young adults who want children see an increasing number of obstacles.


31childless-01-pbtf-jumbo.jpg
Researchers say that societal factors — like rising child care costs, unaffordable housing and slipping optimism about the future — have made it harder to raise children in the United States.

By Teddy Rosenbluth
Published July 31, 2024

For years, some conservatives have framed the declining fertility rate of the United States as an example of eroding family values, a moral catastrophe in slow motion.

JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, recently came under fire for saying in 2021 that the nation was run by “childless cat ladies” who “hate normal Americans for choosing family over these ridiculous D.C. and New York status games.”

Last year, Ashley St. Clair, a Fox News commentator, described childless Americans this way: “They just want to pursue pleasure and drinking all night and going to Beyoncé concerts. It’s this pursuit of self-pleasure in replace of fulfillment and having a family.”

Researchers who study trends in reproductive health see a more nuanced picture. The decision to forgo having children is most likely not a sign that Americans are becoming more hedonistic, they say. For one thing, fertility rates are declining throughout the developed world.

Rather, it indicates that larger societal factors — such as rising child care costs, increasingly expensive housing and slipping optimism about the future — have made it feel more untenable to raise children in the United States.

“I don’t see it as a lack of a commitment to family,” said Mary Brinton, a sociologist who studies low fertility rates at Harvard. “I think the issues are very much on the societal level and the policy level.”

To some extent, experts like Dr. Brinton share the concern that Americans are having less children.

Fertility rates have been generally falling in the United States since the end of the baby boom in the mid-1960s. That decline accelerated after 2008, a trend that has been widely attributed to the Great Recession, said Kenneth Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire.

Everybody thought, maybe they’ll just delay having their babies for a few years, and then they’ll make up for it when the economy and the country gets back on its feet,” he said. “It never happened.”

Last year, the total fertility rate dipped to 1,616.5 births per 1,000 women, a historic low that is far less than the rate needed to maintain the population size, 2,100 births per 1,000 women.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that a growing number of adults said they were unlikely to ever have children. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, nearly half of U.S. counties reported more deaths than births.

In addition, the average age at which Americans are marrying and starting to have children has increased, most likely contributing to the fertility decline. In 2023, the median age of women who were marrying for the first time was 28 — about six years older than in the 1980s.

The average age when women give birth to their first child has also risen substantially, from age 20 during the baby boom to 27 in 2022.

Immigration to the United States helps offset population loss. Yet experts fear that shrinking generations could cause schools to close, economic development to stall and social programs like Social Security to run an even larger deficit.

31childless-02-pbtf-jumbo.jpg
JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, has proposed tax breaks and more voting power for parents. But experts say there is little evidence to suggest that policies rewarding people for having children are successful on their own.

Notably, studies of the reasons behind the fertility decline don’t reveal a dramatic shift in the desire to have children.

Many Americans in their teens and 20s still report that they want two children, said Sarah Hayford, the director of the Institute for Population Research at Ohio State University. The fact that many of those adults don’t realize those goals probably means that external factors are making it more difficult to be a parent, she said.

Survey data suggests that many young adults want to hit certain economic milestones before having children — they might want to buy a house, pay off student debt or comfortably afford child care, said Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a family demographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Reaching those milestones has become increasingly difficult, she said, as mortgage rates have risen sharply and child care costs have soared.

As fewer women opt to stay home to raise children, the absence of policies that support working families — like paid maternity leave and stable child care — may also be leading couples to believe they’re not prepared to be parents, Dr. Guzzo added.

The decision to have children, which she views as the “ultimate vote of confidence” in the future, may also be affected by how optimistic people are about the state of the world, she said.

A study by sociologists in the Netherlands found that people who said they thought the future generation’s prospects were “much worse than today” were less likely to become parents.

Right now, there are plenty of reasons young Americans might be pessimistic, Dr. Guzzo said, including climate change, frequent gun violence and the recent pandemic.

This might explain why fertility rates have been declining in most developed countries — not just in the United States — despite differences in their economic systems and social welfare policies.

“It’s not about being selfish and saying, ‘I’m not having kids because I want to sleep in all the time,’” Dr. Guzzo said. “When fertility rates are down, to me, that’s because people don’t feel like they have a future that they feel confident in.”

If there has been any shift in attitudes toward parenthood, Dr. Hayford of Ohio State said she believed that younger Americans were now more focused on whether they could offer a child “the best experience possible.”

In interviews she conducted with teenagers and adults in their early 20s, Dr. Hayford said, they often stressed the importance of improving their own patience and anger management to ensure they would be able to one day support their children’s emotional needs.

And some research suggests that younger generations have a higher bar for the amount of money required to raise a child.

Having children is something that people feel like they can make a choice about,” Dr. Hayford said. “They are really reluctant to enter into parenthood if they can’t provide what they think children need.”

Exactly how to change the trajectory of a so-called baby bust is still a mystery. Last year, former President Donald J. Trump floated the idea of offering a “baby bonus” to incentivize more families to have children.

“I want a baby boom!” he told a crowd of supporters. “You men are so lucky out there.”

Mr. Vance, his running mate, has advocated tax breaks for households with children and even an altered election system in which parents would have more voting power than people without children.

There is little evidence to suggest that policies designed to reward people for having children are successful on their own, Dr. Guzzo said. Governments in some countries have tried to increase fertility rates with cash incentives, tax breaks and generous parental leave, yielding modest or no success.

Since declining fertility is the result of a range of societal problems, Dr. Guzzo said, legislation that addresses broader issues — like student loans, unaffordable housing and parental leave — is more likely to spur change.

“In our view, every policy is a family policy,” she said.

A correction was made on Aug. 1, 2024: An earlier version of this article misstated the total fertility rate in 2023 and the replacement rate. The figures are 1.6 and 2.1 births per woman, not per 1,000 women.
 
"Waaaaah my kids need private schooling and 10 after school activities"

No, they don't. The best thing you can do for any kid is to raise them in a stable household with good values.
Whoever wants to can put their kids in public school, don’t forget to introduce yourself to Mx Lilith Aphrodite the homeroom teacher.
Xir is completely safe to trust your most precious innocents in the world with lol.

We’re Christian and live in a God honoring way, been married for over a wonderful decade, everyone compliments how polite and outgoing and kind the kiddos are.
Private school is how you AVOID getting your kids groomed in the public jails they staff with deviants and people who just don’t care as long as the kids are quiet.
 
Don't forget the wonderful child tax credit we get from our taxbux. But idiots seem to forget about that and whine about "but how could I ever use my spending money on another human being instead?"

The government literally gives incentives to get married and have kids, yet these people still can't figure it out.
I'm not even denying that the powers that be fucking hate us all and want to make having children as hard as possible but fuck man, to completely give up? To just say "fuck it, you win" I can't do that shit
Kids take a lot of sacrifice and its really scary, but give them two loving parents and they'll already be better off than the majority of kids today. I tell my husband even if we hit hard times our kids will never suffer as much as we did because they have two parents that love each other and them more than anything in the world.
 
Whoever wants to can put their kids in public school, don’t forget to introduce yourself to Mx Lilith Aphrodite the homeroom teacher.
Xir is completely safe to trust your most precious innocents in the world with lol.

We’re Christian and live in a God honoring way, been married for over a wonderful decade, everyone compliments how polite and outgoing and kind the kiddos are.
Private school is how you AVOID getting your kids groomed in the public jails they staff with deviants and people who just don’t care as long as the kids are quiet.
Lmao. Yeah, alright. Every public school across the US is just an inner city crime zone waiting to happen.

Don't spend multiple paragraphs on hyperbole because it comes across as unhinged nonsense.
 
Well, that makes sense. If someone else had had the responsibility to gestate, birth, and be the primary caregiver of all my children whilst I chugged on with my life and turned up for a few hours' 'quality time' at the weekend, I would have nine or ten of them. Instead I am confined by circumstances and husbandly diktat to the five I can reasonably care for personally. Boo hiss.

It makes perfect sense that the group in society who expect to have their daily lives most altered by having kids are more cautious about doing so.
You and every other woman in the west are free to be the primary earners and leave your husbands to raise the children. Of course, we all know you prefer to stay with the kids and have him bring home the bacon.

A subgroup of women have always been agnostic about motherhood. The difference between now and the Depression, or the American Civil War or whenever you'd like to choose, is that reliable, safe and effective methods of avoiding that happening are now available. The oral combined contraceptive pill is not a genie that goes back in the bottle. The post 1960s data, plus later data from developing countries, bears that out impeccably. Once it becomes possible on a population-wide basis to prevent pregnancy, women increasingly avoid it. The reasons why they do this can be argued over endlessly, but the fact they do it is indisputable.
Completely agree. The only path is forward and away from woman-centered reproduction.
 
You could say it's feminism. You could say it's the economy. You could say it's climate doomerism. You could say it's a rise in narcissistic navel-gazing aided by social media.

But I still have a suspicion humans in developed, wealthy countries are reacting to some environmental and/or social signal that triggers an instinctive "subroutine" that says, "ease up on the reproduction."

It might be just the result of existing in a state of plenty. When we were animals, having an extreme wealth of resources in one place could be dangerous because we might overpopulate to our detriment. Not that evolution cares if extra people come into existence and then go on to starve. But overpopulation would be a threat to existing creatures and their genes (because of the extra competition), so wouldn't it make sense for there to be some evolutionary programming that says, "stop fucking?" Couldn't that be an explanation for the drop in intimate relationships between men and women in the Western world, that men and women are creatures who naturally won't tend to function harmoniously in times of extreme plenty?

I don't know. But, once again, I suspect it could be related to the Rat Utopia experiments. It doesn't change my disgust at societies that see a train wrecking in slow motion and, to a man and woman, everyone says, "Well, I'm not changing anything about the way I live."
The environment that we live in is totally unprecedented. I don't think people think about this enough. I read something years ago that really stuck with me: we absorb more information in one day than most people in the 1700s would in years or even their entire life. I suspect a lot of people live in a state of overwhelm, and it might explain some of the insane behavior that we see nowadays. Never before has there been this many people on earth, never before has there been this much information blasting at you every waking moment. People in earlier times were poorer but they didn't have the same cognitive load that we have today. They never had to interact with as many people or care about so many things.

That's not even getting into the chemical stuff. I truly believe that chemicals are impacting fertility rates and behavior. I watched a podcast a bit ago where they explained that an exposure to a certain chemical while in the womb can cause physical and behavioral differences in males (both humans and mice.) It made the males effeminate in behavior.
And like the introduction of every other invention with far reaching consequences, it will be up to society to ensure it is used for good and not for evil. Should we get rid of the car because murderers use it to get to their victims? No. Should we get rid of nuclear power because it can be used to make bombs? No. Should the internet be done away with because predators can trade CP? No. It is up to the good to triumph over evil.
Artificial wombs are worth making even to just help dangerously premature infants or to prevent an abortion when something goes wrong with the mother like cancer or something.
 
Took less then three pages until this thread went into full "it's women and niggers fault!!" The white(non-spic) guys in my area are all porn addicted losers, unemployed, batshit insane, or have made some woman a single mother already. The dating pool for young women to find a suitable husband is dogshit even if you lower your standards to fat dudes.

None of the faggots whining in here deserve children anyways. The average Kf user is a neurotic bpd fueled porn addict that blames all of societies woes onto anything but himself. Your white forefathers failed you and you're lashing out at the only women capable of keeping the race alive. Most importantly you don't have kids or even a girlfriend/wife because you're an ugly loser, simple as.
 
Kids are expensive and many, many people aren't fit for parenthood. Also it's immoral to reproduce if you have shit genes like confirmed hereditary cancers, serious mental disorders or serious ugliness. I'm not an antinatalist but dooming someone to a tormented existence is a special kind of evil.
 
The dating pool for young women to find a suitable husband is dogshit even if you lower your standards to fat dudes.
Literally more women in the US are fat and unemployed than men, and they also want those guys to take care of them while remaining losers. This is a dilemma caused by people having mismatched standards on both sides, but as usual for these sorts of threads, the posters wanting women to do less and demand more have arrived to blame the guys they don't date for being the problem.
 
Literally more women in the US are fat and unemployed than men, and they also want those guys to take care of them while remaining losers. This is a dilemma caused by people having mismatched standards on both sides, but as usual for these sorts of threads, the posters wanting women to do less and demand more have arrived to blame the guys they don't date for being the problem.
I'm talking about white women and white men, not your 5 ton latinas and black women. There are plenty healthy religious white women who want a family with kids. The only reason they're not with a dude is because of the vetting we have to do to make sure the fathers of our children aren't fat retards.
 
Took less then three pages until this thread went into full "it's women and niggers fault!!" The white(non-spic) guys in my area are all porn addicted losers, unemployed, batshit insane, or have made some woman a single mother already. The dating pool for young women to find a suitable husband is dogshit even if you lower your standards to fat dudes.

None of the faggots whining in here deserve children anyways. The average Kf user is a neurotic bpd fueled porn addict that blames all of societies woes onto anything but himself. Your white forefathers failed you and you're lashing out at the only women capable of keeping the race alive. Most importantly you don't have kids or even a girlfriend/wife because you're an ugly loser, simple as.
And look how long it took some foid to show up and call everyone she/her doesn't like an incel :story:
 
If you cannot, will not, or don't want to live beyond yourself, don't have kids. This applies to anyone, regardless of race/sex/nationality/religion.

Living beyond yourself means you always put the child, or sometimes grandchild's needs first. It's putting love, time, energy, and money into that child/grandchild's life and development. It's being there for that child/grandchild in good times and bad.

Living beyond yourself as a parent is working to set the best example possible, being fully cognizant of your own weaknesses/frailties. Sometimes it means breaking cycles of bad parenting. If you had parents who showed you how NOT to parent, if you have what it takes you can break, or largely break, those cycles.

Living beyond yourself means always telling the truth, never making a promise you cannot keep, never calling your kids cruel and abusive names, and never taking from them.

Living beyond yourself means setting the highest standards possible for yourself as a parent, knowing you might not always meet them, but never stopping the pursuit of excellence.

Having said that, you can do everything right, give it 110%, and sometimes kids/grandkids still fuck things up. They have free will, of course. But if nothing else you still give it your best.

As always since time immemorial, we see plenty of kids who are the result of bad parenting, and mercifully many more who have had better parenting.

Like any other endeavor, you get out of something what you put into it.

Father and grandfather here.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty healthy religious white women who want a family with kids.
Not really. By the numbers, 30% of white women are having nonmarital births (entirely of their own volition) and even once you calculate for just white women, they are still fatter than white men.
Just going to have to face the facts that perhaps if all you're seeing are white loser men, you are being viewed in the same light by the guys you think should be courting you. This isn't an issue of guys being so much worse than the women, it's yet again lopsided expectations for the men to be markedly better than the women for no material gain.
 
I was raised by classic narcissist Boomers who had children, then went "fuck, we made a mistake," and didn't want to be parents anymore. My biggest fear is that, because I am a selfish narcissist, I will have a child and look at him or her as a burden which I am stuck with for the rest of my life.

People have told me that, once I actually hold a hypothetical child, I won't feel that way... but I really don't want to risk it. It is far easier to use contraception than it is to bring life into this world that I can fuck up just like my parents did.
But then you're just gay.
 
I have twin boys and kids are not as hard as people say. Yes there is stress and sacrifice but it a lot easer then people think. Also I feel most people that don't want kids are just lazy tbh.
 
And look how long it took some foid to show up and call everyone she/her doesn't like an incel :story:
It took 10 pages after 9 pages of excuses and blaming women.
Not really. By the numbers, 30% of white women are having nonmarital births (entirely of their own volition) and even once you calculate for just white women, they are still fatter than white men.
Just going to have to face the facts that perhaps if all you're seeing are white loser men, you are being viewed in the same light by the guys you think should be courting you. This isn't an issue of guys being so much worse than the women, it's yet again lopsided expectations for the men to be markedly better than the women for no material gain.
Women have always been heavier since we're the sex that has to, you know, grow a human from our blood and cells? That plus the average american grocery store being filled with goyslop means the average american is going to be much fatter. You know this though, but the urge to blame women is just too strong for you.
 
Not really. By the numbers, 30% of white women are having nonmarital births (entirely of their own volition)
People used to have shotgun marriages when the woman found out she was pregnant. There’s an old joke about the first-born in many families being born “premature”.
 
Women have always been heavier since we're the sex that has to, you know, grow a human from our blood and cells?
This is stupid cope, human women aren't crocodiles, there's no expectation to be heavier than men and no biological justification to higher rates of obesity. You're acting women come preloaded with the pregnancy weight or something. If you aren't having kids anyway, why should you weigh as much (more than) a pregnant woman? Lmao

Re: Shotgun marriages
The state has deprecated this ritual by just requiring the man to financially support a woman he gets pregnant without the woman having to get married to him.
 
People used to have shotgun marriages when the woman found out she was pregnant. There’s an old joke about the first-born in many families being born “premature”.
This is a case of people looking at the past with rose colored glasses again- the same shit happened with the birth rate. We curbstomped teen pregnancy pretty good (not completely) and now we’re scratching our heads as to why there aren’t a ton of babies running around.
This is stupid cope, human women aren't crocodiles, there's no expectation to be heavier than men and no biological justification to higher rates of obesity. You're acting women come preloaded with the pregnancy weight or something. If you aren't having kids anyway, why should you weigh as much (more than) a pregnant woman? Lmao
You’re both partially right here. Women tend to store more fat in places such as breasts, hips, rearend. This is actually is for childbearing purposes and the accumulation of fat is extra energy to burn when pregnant and rearing children. Estrogen is responsible for this and it’s why trannies that go on it develop gynecomastia (irregular fat distribution). Now with that said obesity is not the same thing as that by a long shot. Women have a tougher time shedding fat, that’s just a given unfortunately- which is why more women need to eat healthier and exercise regularly. Most vertebral female animals do retain fat like this, this isn’t a retarded body positivity cope. Thin women also retain fat at a higher rate than thin men, it’s all due to biological factors. Theres nuance to these kinds of things.
 
Back