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.
 
when was the last time your neighbor did anything good for you?
hell, who remembers their neighbors these days?

We're all too disconnected from each other to even have that anymore.
I meant shit more like charitable actions like participating in food or clothing drives for the indigent in your area, volunteering etc.
If family counts, so does having children and taking care of them. Our society is so low trust talking in public is weird these days. There isn't much value in things like that in a society that no longer values them. Fucked up, but what can you do?
A society that no longer values them stems from the belief that society no longer values them. The same way 'everyone is on Twitter' because everyone believes as such.

If you really lament the current state of things, they're only repaired by giving them value. It's a granular problem on a national scale. But that's getting away from my original point, which is that the mere act of siring/birthing children isn't in and of itself the sole purpose of life, and viewing it as such is a failure to think critically, or deeply on the topic imo. Which to be fair I was directing at someone else.
 
I just tire of the whining.

People had huge families during times of immense hardship. They pulled together and worked to make it through, maybe even scrape together something a little better. Anyone can still do that now- yeah it's clownworld, the obstacles are different and in some ways more complex, but they are not insurmountable. Will you be able to breeze through giving kids the kind of childhood the boomers or millennials had? Where every kid has his own bedroom fully kitted out with a racecar bed and two different gaming consoles and a big backyard in the suburbs? Probably not. But that stuff is just the dressing on life, anyways. The real reward is in the spiritual struggle, the relationships, the experience of just being alive.

You're gonna vote against the line that started with a caveman beating a mammoth and cooking it over a fire, give up on the line all your ancestors fought to preserve for millennia, because you can't buy a racecar bed and soccer camp?

Petulant loser attitude.
I think, and I do mean this respectfully, that this is probably an easier line to take if you had a childhood where your basic needs for food, shelter, warmth, safety, hygiene were consistently met. Poverty as a kid, now, often means your actual needs are not going to get met, and that's a whole different ballgame.

If your experience of being a kid wasn't the 'We were poor but goddamn we were happy" Laura Ingalls Wilder stuff, but the kind of poverty that is characteristic of urban poverty in recent decades - substance abuse, violence, total lack of supervision or even adult presence, no idea where or when the next meal is coming - then it's pretty understandable to say, no, you wouldn't raise any child the way you were raised yourself.

The insecurity, the anxiety, the fundamental certainty that no one is actually looking after you and you're on your fucking own, those things don't leave you even once you're grown and your circumstances are comfortable.

"The experience of just being alive" was pretty shit for me and my coevals in childhood, honestly. It was mostly an experience of knowing that things can always, and usually do, get worse, often in new and particularly disillusioning ways. I have children, and a lot of them, now, because I was able to guarantee they would not have the kind of experiences I had. They are probably a bit spoiled, materially. They have never missed a meal, or worn shoes that were too small for months, or smelt because there was nothing to get washed in. Their bones are unbroken. They've been on holiday. They have nice clean warm beds and toothpaste and toothbrushes. They have a front door that doesn't get kicked in, and parents who are home when they go to bed. They don't run and hide when their dad comes home. They certainly do not have any experience or insight of not having their important wants, let alone their actual needs, not met. I'm not sorry about that. I owed that to them.

I want them to have a soft life, a comfortable existence, with good things and good experiences in it. I've had the other sort, and it isn't something I'd want for any child, let alone one of mine. I don't care if some people think it "builds resilience" or "character" or some other shit. These are my babies. It's my biological imperative to keep them safe and cared for. It is in no way unreasonable, if you don't think you can do that for your kids, to not have them.
 
I want them to have a soft life, a comfortable existence, with good things and good experiences in it.
I want my kids to be good people who will stand up for what's right.

We are not the same. Easier to make a dozen like mine in spartan conditions, than 1 like yours. Too bad for you. Enjoy losing.
 
I meant shit more like charitable actions like participating in food or clothing drives for the indigent in your area, volunteering etc.
Most of the poor where I live are drug addicts and illegals, I'm afraid.
A society that no longer values them stems from the belief that society no longer values them.
if only
 
I want my kids to be good people who will stand up for what's right.

We are not the same. Easier to make a dozen like mine in spartan conditions, than 1 like yours. Too bad for you. Enjoy losing.
We’ll see who loses and who prepares their kids to be happy and healthy and functioning members of society with financial security completely separate from government funds.

Not saying you’re wrong because not sure exactly where you’re coming from on this, but kids going to STEM schools and jointing local kids groups of faith isn’t setting them up for failure, neither does building teamwork and self esteem through extracurriculars.
 
I want my kids to be good people who will stand up for what's right.

We are not the same. Easier to make a dozen like mine in spartan conditions, than 1 like yours. Too bad for you. Enjoy losing.
I also want that for my children, and I do my level best to instil values and ethics in them commensurate with that. One of the ways I do that is to buy them expensive education.

I also was not born yesterday, and I know how much easier their lives will be with all the privilege my money can buy them.

Would they survive 'spartan' upbringing? Of course. Will their lives be easier because of the opportunities I can buy them? Yes. Drastically so. Will they ever really toil for a living, or do manual labour? No. They will not. They will either work hard enough in a profession, and thereby inherit the family business, or they will work hardly at all in a non-job like my old one. If they have a passion or a great business idea, we can afford to fund them to start that, just as my father in law funded mine.

My eldest is nine. I don't bet that in the next nine years before she becomes an adult, there will be some great revolution in the UK such that inherited wealth and privilege count for nothing. I base this on the entire fucking history of the UK, and I consider my bet to be safe. My aim for them is to provide them with all the inherited wealth and privilege I can.

We all do what we think is best for our children in our circumstances, or at least, the best we can manage to accomplish for them. I've done what I believe to be best for them as individuals. Whether or not that's what's best for 'society'... I'm not society's mother. I'm their mother.

You have different circumstances, so your calculation probably looks different to mine. That's quite normal.
 
Most of the poor where I live are drug addicts and illegals, I'm afraid.
That's been true for most of human history. Except the 'illegals' used to speak the same language.
As a man painfully aware of the media complex and its lies, it really does work that way. Or have you never wondered how cultures that hold such things dear managed to do so in the first place?

I feel like to fully explain my position on this I'd need to be significantly less tired, and that it'd belong in a DM or deep thoughts thread. So I'll leave it at that for now.
 
Society is falling apart because of weak faggots raised with a "soft and comfortable" childhood.

Children should be kept safe, but safety doesn't mean safetyism, mommy ordering "softness" and pillows and cossetting and tutors and coddling and sweets and indulgence.

I see the outcomes of UMC professional parenting daily and it turns my stomach. You raise neurotic little brats and it's no wonder they don't want to go on with life, let alone perpetuate.

Like a tomato plant, human beings need adversity to thrive.
 
Society is falling apart because of weak faggots raised with a "soft and comfortable" childhood.

Children should be kept safe, but safety doesn't mean safetyism, mommy ordering "softness" and pillows and cossetting and tutors and coddling and sweets and indulgence.

I see the outcomes of UMC professional parenting daily and it turns my stomach. You raise neurotic little brats and it's no wonder they don't want to go on with life, let alone perpetuate.

Like a tomato plant, human beings need adversity to thrive.
Well that’s a little rude but fine.

The whole point is that the kids don’t build weird neurosis because they have too much time to think, plus they’re building healthy skills and relationships.

And tbh if a kid is falling behind or isn’t strong in a certain area, high GPA is required to be in the school, and you aren’t qualified to tutor them yourself, it’s setting them up for failure not getting them a tutor.

Appealing to my ancestors would mean having 10 children in a 1 room shack and we all eat potatoes and onions (if we have them) to survive, meat only occasionally.

There are good reasons why ancestors left their respective hellholes in Europe.
 
Well that’s a little rude but fine.

The whole point is that the kids don’t build weird neurosis because they have too much time to think, plus they’re building healthy skills and relationships.

And tbh if a kid is falling behind or isn’t strong in a certain area, high GPA is required to be in the school, and you aren’t qualified to tutor them yourself, it’s setting them up for failure not getting them a tutor.

Appealing to my ancestors would mean having 10 children in a 1 room shack and we all eat potatoes and onions (if we have them) to survive, meat only occasionally.

There are good reasons why ancestors left their respective hellholes in Europe.
I can think of dozens of great men who grew up eating onions in a shack.

We are about to enter into a phase of history where onion eating and shack living are necessary skills. Being "too good" to "reduce oneself" below the cossetted Last Emperor level of comfort is going to be a massive liability.

At some point it really will be a numbers game. Two privately educated UMC spawn who have never even had to read a bus schedule will be instantly irrelevant in the face of a group of hostiles from lesser cultures who think a five pound bag of Vidalias is a windfall. If you want this culture to survive, make more bodies to fill it up, and teach them to live without the fucking racecar beds and STEM camp.
 
Idiocracy was right and this thread proves it. At least we can look forward to "Ow! My Balls!"
Are we referring to the people who have 10 kids, eschew schooling, and live in a one room shack eating onions?

The other people aren’t having more kids than they can afford unless they’re guvment funded.
That was also in Idiocracy.
 
I can think of dozens of great men who grew up eating onions in a shack.

We are about to enter into a phase of history where onion eating and shack living are necessary skills. Being "too good" to "reduce oneself" below the cossetted Last Emperor level of comfort is going to be a massive liability.

At some point it really will be a numbers game. Two privately educated UMC spawn who have never even had to read a bus schedule will be instantly irrelevant in the face of a group of hostiles from lesser cultures who think a five pound bag of Vidalias is a windfall. If you want this culture to survive, make more bodies to fill it up, and teach them to live without the fucking racecar beds and STEM camp.
Two 'privately educated UMC spawn' are not going to be living anywhere fucking near the 'hostiles from lesser cultures'. That's for the poorfags. This is exactly my point about inherited wealth and privilege. Moreover, money and education make emigration straightforward, if you really don't like where you are.

Money gives you options. In a capitalist society, money always gives you options that people without money don't have.

I appreciate the American definition of upper middle class is probably more on a level with what the UK considers straight middle class, so there's more chance that those children would have to live near brown people. America doesn't have that many white people already, compared to native white countries. As for the neuroses, I don't know any American children, so I can't comment on that. You guys do certainly have different parenting priorities, that much I picked up from some books.

As I said, if, like you, I believed there was about to be some Mad Max style societal apocalypse, I'd make different decisions. I feel confident that my actions are congruent with my expectations for the next ten to fifteen years.

But who can really know what the future holds.
 
I hear this excuse from incels constantly to justify why they refuse to be intimate with women, as if all women are going to back-stab the father from seeing their children. Just admit you'd fail as a father instead of shafting your problems onto the opposite sex.
The meme holds true. If you have a bowl of M&M's and 99 of them were totally fine, but 1 of them would take most of your money, take your kids, take your house, possibly slander you as abusive, ruin your reputation, and throw you in jail if you can't pay, would you still eat from that bowl?
 
The meme holds true. If you have a bowl of M&M's and 99 of them were totally fine, but 1 of them would take most of your money, take your kids, take your house, possibly slander you as abusive, ruin your reputation, and throw you in jail if you can't pay, would you still eat from that bowl?
You could literally use this excuse for men as well, but it's idiotic because fearing the absolute worst could happen in a particular circumstance is what prevents you from getting ahead in life, and you're judging an entire sex based on the actions of a minority.
 
Back