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.
 
Are you volunteering to pay for everyone's kids?
I would if I could. I guess you can say I already am paying for Jamal and Hunter via welfare and food stamps. You only have one life and like said I refuse to be priced out of continuing my bloodline. I was a poorfag with nothing living in section 8. It is possible.
 
I guess you can say I already am paying for Jamal and Hunter via welfare and food stamps.
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.
 
No we're not, are you stupid? Even the most expensive goods you can buy in the current market are downgrades from what was available 20 years ago. Yes, even computers, sophisticated as they are, are worse in build quality, and your dollar does not go as far. Full-Size Luxury SUVs with $120k MSRP dealer stickers are missing luxuries and quality of life features that were present in $7000 cars from the 1970s. Clothing is worse, furniture is worse, building materials are worse, raw materials are cheaper and of a lower quality, etc.

This "I have netflix and candy crush and macdonalds hehe best time to be alive!" meme needs to fucking die. NOTHING is of a higher quality now. NOTHING. Lord over your empire of plastic Chinese bullshit all you want, I am not convinced. I am old enough to remember what quality looked like, and I haven't seen it since.
I specified prior to the 20th century given that the baby boomers had it much better than us materially in many many ways (also of even greater importance is that the country wasn’t flooded with third-world savages yet, but I digress…) point being, even in the truly rough times like the bubonic plague or Genghis khan ravaging europe one did not observe such a dramatic downturn in birthrate.
 
I specified prior to the 20th century given that the baby boomers had it much better than us materially in many many ways (also of even greater importance is that the country wasn’t flooded with third-world savages yet, but I digress…) point being, even in the truly rough times like the bubonic plague or Genghis khan ravaging europe one did not observe such a dramatic downturn in birthrate.

Yeah, I didn't read that part, my B. I see words like that and (usually rightfully) assume it's consoomerbabble.
 
Women have to put in a lot more work than men do when raising children.
So surrogacy is a good option than. It allows men to have children and women don't have to do any work raising the kid.

Also a lot of young men are fucking brain-rotted from pornography so I don’t blame young women for not wanting to have kids with them.
As if the women aren't similarly brain-rotted from porn be it video or written. We all know which sex relies on plastic crap to get off and it isn't XY.

Many of these girls probably grew up in classrooms where boys were imitating noises they heard in porn. I think it’s also tied to why girls are trooning out at record numbers.
This is the dumbest shit I have ever read. No, girls are trooning out because of sixty fucking years of feminist propaganda about how being a woman means your oppressed, and how all men hate you.
 
I want kids but I wasn't going to have them in a 500sqft box. Every shitty place I've lived has had issues with mould, unsafe gas systems, non functioning heating, no hot water for days at a time. Maybe I've been unlucky with a string of fucking awful landlords but the idea of cramming a baby in the shit housing available is grim. I know people do it. I want better than that, sorry.

Fortunately we've just bought a house in a nice area so we will be getting started, but we are both high earners (childcare costs, maintaining my own boiler etc doesn't actually concern me). It seems like a depressing choice if you can't afford more than the shitty rental options. Getting knocked up and begging for the government to house you isn't an ideal strategy.
 
You'll live separately once they become adults (often a fair distance away)
Not necessarily. With housing costs being what they are you may well still be living with your children until they either partner up or one of you dies
ITT people who actually fell for the "don't have kids, you'll go broke!" psyop after their grandparents raised eight kids during the fucking great depression.
People had huge families during times of immense hardship
This is not the Great Depression. People back then had lots of kids A) because healthcare wasn't what it is now and if you had eight kids you'd be lucky if maybe four of them survived to adulthood (look for example at Richard Nixon. He had four brothers and two of them died very young) and B) because you needed all those children for cheap child labour, or to help you run the farm or whatever

Well, now healthcare is what it is and most kids are likely to survive on into adulthood and child labour laws govern what jobs children can do and how many hours they can work, so kids are effectively worthless as a source of income until they reach 16 and can start making some money
 
So surrogacy is a good option than. It allows men to have children and women don't have to do any work raising the kid.
No, surrogacy is fucking evil and deprives a child from being with their biological mother (whose body was being owned by someone for 9 months like breeding cattle).

If your first instinct is to promote surrogacy instead of thinking that child-rearing should be more egalitarian between the sexes then you’re either a faggot, a retard, or worse yet, a faggot retard.
As if the women aren't similarly brain-rotted from porn be it video or written. We all know which sex relies on plastic crap to get off and it isn't XY
IMG_0615.jpeg
(Also P.S., trans women are XY)
This is the dumbest shit I have ever read. No, girls are trooning out because of sixty fucking years of feminist propaganda about how being a woman means your oppressed, and how all men hate you.
Yeah you’re really making a good argument that all men don’t hate women whilst blaming everything on women and wanting women removed from the act of procreation. I’m glad artificial wombs aren’t on the market (at this time). It keeps retards like you from reproducing.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd possibly have kids, a degree, and a stable job by this point in life around a little over a decade ago. A lot of friends thought they would too. :story:

I mean some people I know managed to get a degree and stable job at least but Those three things in a row seem to be mostly wealthy or welfare people things now I guess lmao.
 
No, surrogacy is fucking evil and deprives a child from being with their biological mother (whose body was being owned by someone for 9 months like breeding cattle).
Lmao, you are such an idiot. Nobody owns the surrogates body but the woman herself. Does your boss own your body because they employ you to do a job? No, stop being an idiot.

If your first instinct is to promote surrogacy instead of thinking that child-rearing should be more egalitarian between the sexes then you’re either a faggot, a retard, or worse yet, a faggot retard.
Promoting surrogacy does make child-rearing more egalitarian by making men do the work of raising children. Child rearing is inegalitarian between men and women because women want it so.

(Also P.S., trans women are XY)
"self-reported" - Makes the the study next to useless.

Yeah you’re really making a good argument that all men don’t hate women whilst blaming everything on women and wanting women removed from the act of procreation. I’m glad artificial wombs aren’t on the market (at this time). It keeps retards like you from reproducing.
I'm not blaming everything on women. Feminists are not women. All women aren't feminists. I get it's hard for women like you to do this, but don't confuse women and feminists as one in the same. Thanks!

I'm not asking women to be removed from procreation. A significant chunk of women are, however, asking for it. Me seeking solutions so men can have children without women is me trying to find peaceful solutions to current problems. Surrogacy, or the artificial womb isn't my preferred method of producing children, but I'm not going to tell other men they have to die childless because they failed to appease some woman. A number of modern women feel it is their privilege to kill society and deny men children because men aren't worshipping them enough. This arrangement has never worked in recorded history. Is unsustainable in our current epoch and insulting to men. It has to be overcome. If the dollar and the test tube is what overcomes this current problem, than so be it.
 
The reason is niggers and feminism.

Animals don't breed when they think a predator is watching them.

If you always have to look over your shoulder in case Jamalaniqua wants to play the knock out game, you won't be in a parenting mood.

Feminism is easy. With both parents working, who raises the kid? Apple? Google? They can't stop the kid from eating tide pods even if they were benevolent...
 
I just really, genuinely, do not want kids. I get that there should be some innate biological drive to procreate- I just dont have that. Ive wondered if I got a little microwaved from radon in the soil or contaminated with microplastics or whatever to make me this way. Who knows.

You're not alone. I could spout off about not feeling morally right bringing another tax slave into this Satanic country, but, at the end of the day, I just don't feel the spiritual call to go through with it.
 
And the fact that 12% more young men want to have children than young women means nothing to you? Finding women revolting has nothing to do with it for those men and is entirely based on the fact women don't want to have children. I guess society just needs to tell these men to get fucked?
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.

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.

And in all fairness, men also do this. There are not billions of men out there scratching their heads about why their wife has not presented them with twelve kids yet. The use of contraception is routine in stable unmarried relationships and marriages, even those of a self-described religious nature. No one in our congregation actually believes that God only decided to bless me for an oddly short and specific, if hectic, period of time. They can readily figure out that when He started to send them on a 'buy one get one free' basis, my husband took some drastic and not Church-approved action. The old joke that Catholics are only blessed with children exactly twice holds true around here.

The more kids a wife pops out, the greater the economic pressure on a husband to provide adequately for their basic needs, which in a developed economy is not insubstantial. Particularly a post-industrial one where wages have been kept artificially low for a long time. I would have been quite happy to raise a Von Trapp tribute act, but my husband was not prepared to countenance the comparative reduction in living standards and financial security that would have meant. And the having of the kidlets is absolutely a two yeses, one no sort of decision in a normal marriage.

He is probably right about it not being good for my health to carry on like that, anyway. The spirit is willing but the flesh is increasingly troublesome.
 
Kids are expensive and it doesn't help that the price of living has gone up.

Why have a kid and put more of a financial burden on yourself? These days you can either have a house or a kid and you can't have both since everything is expensive now.
That sound like a line used in the movie Idiocracy....it's only a movie, not an instructions manual....or is it?
 
because i'm infertile, and I don't want to try fertility medication because I know a few people that had several miscarriages and stillbirths with it, and I don't want to take a second or third mortgage or whatever it's called out to try IVF on the off chance that I *might* become pregnant. And before anyone says "but what about adoption", that is a possibility in the future, but I'm still licking my wounds about not being a proper female by being able to reproduce and now that I'm approaching 40 I think that stage of my life is slowly ending.
 
Back