Green Room

Chicago Tribune wonders: Say, where are all the children?

posted at 1:04 pm on January 28, 2013 by

Deacon Greg writes, “Most of us know the answer.” Yes, indeed, we do — but the ChiTrib oddly doesn’t mention the word abortion… even once:

Demographers have long known that the baby boom of the 1950s was giving way to a baby bust nationwide. Now Illinois and the Chicago area are providing a vivid example of the trend: According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2010, Illinois had a 6.2 percent drop in children under 10, among the biggest declines in the country.

The impact is being felt in declining school enrollments and refashioned youth programs, officials say. In coming years, it will be felt in a workforce with fewer workers to replace retirees and help replenish pension coffers.

Changes in the youth population are especially pronounced in Chicago, which lost one-fifth of its young residents, particularly along parts of the lakefront, in Hispanic neighborhoods and in places where public housing high-rises once stood. But the trend is also under way in suburbs in Cook and DuPage counties…

Although solutions are hard to come by, some demographers believe fewer children will mean that policymakers need to be more committed than ever to improving the quality of education and social services for all children.

Solutions are hard to come by when you ignore one of the main causes of a problem.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

55 million abortions and below replacement fertility rates are the biggest news story of our times. If our entitlements seem to burden our economy, it is only because they were designed for a much younger population than we have now. In the end, the death of postmodern liberalism will be ruled a suicide.

xuyee on January 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Solutions are hard to come by when you ignore one of the main causes of a problem.

Amen brother.

Major Nuisance on January 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Medical waste + people moving away from marriage and kids.

IR-MN on January 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The idea of putting the child up for adoption never enters the equation, does it?

Mitoch55 on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Families are also fleeing the Crook County and Chicago area in general. Unfortunately when they move to traditionally more conservative areas they promptly vote in radical Leftist nutjobs.

Never -once- do the Dem transplant voters wonder why the “red” areas they move to are more appealing than their failed “blue” areas. They can’t make the connection because they exist in an insular, Lefty bubble.

visions on January 28, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Toure must be happy

cmsinaz on January 28, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Oh, and it goes without saying that the greedy, selfish, Progressive Union Thug destruction of the Chicago Public Schools plays a big part as well.

visions on January 28, 2013 at 1:29 PM

All according to democrat party plan. A fundamentally changed America, it’s here.

It is going to be a glorious future comrades, GLORIOUS!!!!

jukin3 on January 28, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Pfft, a bunch of screaming ones moved in next door.

Flange on January 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM

This is happening world-wide although it is masked in some areas. The U.S. has aborted itself into future poverty in a country with demographics and socioeconomic disparity similar to that of Mexico.

Mason on January 28, 2013 at 1:40 PM

They are too busy being killed by the gangs who control much of the city (or joining them).

nobar on January 28, 2013 at 1:40 PM

The lack of new kids in the Chicago area is the lack of economic development. Illinois, and especially Cook county, are work hard via high property taxes to force businesses to move away. If the businesses move away, so do the families.

WashJeff on January 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Oh, stop. Abortion is a symptom, not a cause.

Xasprtr on January 28, 2013 at 1:55 PM

We know where 55 Million of them went too.

BigGator5 on January 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM

In coming years, it will be felt in a workforce with fewer workers to replace retirees and help replenish pension coffers.

In COMING years???

Fact: There were 159.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1940.

Fact: There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950.

Fact: There were 5.1 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1960.

Fact: There were 3.7 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1970.

Fact: There were 3.2 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1980.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1990.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2000.

Fact: There were 3.3 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2005.

Fact: There were 1.75 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2011.

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The idea of putting the child up for adoption never enters the equation, does it?

Mitoch55 on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

For those who get knocked up, yes.

But there are plenty more who simply are waiting longer—much longer–to have kids in the first place, because the economy is so bad. People like me aren’t getting our girlfriends pregnant and then paying for her abortion; we’re just not getting our girlfriends pregnant at all in the first place.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

What happened to the Obama baby boom? I remember orgasmic SRM reporters making a story of it back in 2008.

forest on January 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM

What happened to the Obama baby boom? I remember orgasmic SRM reporters making a story of it back in 2008.

forest on January 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Orgasms with your pants still on watching a puffed up phony messiah is generally considered a poor way to get pregnant.

Flange on January 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Chicago Tribune wonders: Say, where are all the children?

…D E A D…!

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2013 at 2:21 PM

The lack of new kids in the Chicago area is the lack of economic development. Illinois, and especially Cook county, are working hard via high property taxes to force businesses to move away. If the businesses move away, so do the families.

WashJeff on January 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM

^ This, too. God, yes.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Oh, stop. Abortion is a symptom, not a cause.

Xasprtr on January 28, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Abortion (and contraception, by the way)are the product of children becoming much less of a priority for people than enjoying all the comforts of life and avoiding responsibility.
(ducks)

neuquenguy on January 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Add to the list of factors the horrible horrible schools in Chicago.
And gang violence, as mentioned above.
I don’t know how that translates into the state-wide numbers, but I would think it would have to play a role

yocheved on January 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

I was not aware that there was still a significant population of responsible adults who were uncomfortable with the idea of receiving welfare.

J.S.K. on January 28, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The number of people who actually care about that are very few. As someone else said “1-time payout to get your uterus scraped or 18 years of welfare benefits” is a pretty lop-sided decision.

MelonCollie on January 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The idea of putting the child up for adoption never enters the equation, does it?

Mitoch55 on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

no. abortion lovers pretend that the entire concept of adoption does not exist. well, unless a pro-lifer mentions it… then in response to the pro-lifer, they underestimate the entire adoption system, saying things like “some adoptive families abuse the child” or “the foster care system is full of problems” or “many kids in foster care don’t get adopted.” they COMPLETELY IGNORE all the happy stories of adoption, happiness for the kid and the family. they act like the entire adoption system is pointless and not important at all. that irritates me so much.

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM

In COMING years???

Fact: There were 159.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1940.

Fact: There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950.

Fact: There were 5.1 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1960.

Fact: There were 3.7 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1970.

Fact: There were 3.2 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1980.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1990.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2000.

Fact: There were 3.3 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2005.

Fact: There were 1.75 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2011.

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 1:59 PM

i wish there were a way to opt out of SS. =( i don’t want to be a part of the system at all.

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Abortion (and contraception, by the way)are the product of children becoming much less of a priority for people than enjoying all the comforts of life and avoiding responsibility.
(ducks)

neuquenguy on January 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Contraception, the elephant in the room for both those who support and oppose abortion. Once contraception was legalized by judicial fiat, all bets were off as far as respecting the dignity of the human person and family.

Vatican Watcher on January 28, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Kids are expensive to raise.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Then you give up possessions and perks you thought you needed. If we would have waited until we could “afford” them we wouldn’t have had any of our four kids. Funny thing. Having children should teach you to move beyond your selfish nature. It should teach you what is important in life. Having children should give you the reason to work harder and do better than you would have ever done if you didn’t have those sweet little mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and feet to shoe. They should make you a better person.

The French word chère is the perfect word to show the duality of your view and mine of children. It means dear or expensive depending on the context.

Fallon on January 28, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Where are all the children?

Beneath the Altar of Heaven, their blood crying for vengeance.

StubbleSpark on January 28, 2013 at 5:57 PM

You can’t nor society be fruitful unless you multiply. That goes for health, wealth, happiness all well beyond just beyond the simple number of kids. Funny how that old book tossed out of the public square proves to be wise beyond measure

AH_C on January 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Murder 55 million children in 40 years, and then wonder where all the children have gone? Dumber than a bag of hammers are these progressives.

djtnt on January 28, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I have no comment to make about a national trend, but here in Chicago, people often choose to move out of the city once they start a family.

The cost of one child in private school is manageable, but two or more means people leave for the suburbs where you can still get a relatively safe public school education.

So the lack of children under 10 in Chicago can have more than one cause.

Chitownmom on January 28, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Then you give up possessions and perks you thought you needed. If we would have waited until we could “afford” them we wouldn’t have had any of our four kids. Funny thing. Having children should teach you to move beyond your selfish nature.

Fallon on January 28, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Agreed, but with all due respect, you don’t know my situation. I’m not some bachelor making $90k a year saying I can’t afford kids because then I would have to cut back on skiing trips, Bulls tickets, and bottle service at night clubs. I had planned to have a family by now, but the last few years have been financially and medically very difficult for me. Real life happens; things get postponed or cancelled altogether.

I’ll freely admit to being a screw-up in my 20s. I made a lot of bad decisions, but boning around and knocking up women mercifully wasn’t one of them. I’ve made plenty of mistakes in my life, and, at 36, I’m still paying for them. I have more paying to do before marriage and family becomes a realistic and responsible option, if it ever does become an option at all.

In short, I and only I am the one who has made the mess of my life, and it’s my responsibility to clean it up. I’m working on it. Don’t call me selfish for wanting to get my house in order before I invite over company to stay permanently.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The idea of putting the child up for adoption never enters the equation, does it?

Mitoch55 on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

It brings up an interesting point. Imagine this: believing the world is a place where you and the people around you are growing and building, and where you and the people around you look at your own futures optimistically and enthusiastically and can’t wait to hand all your huge dreams and hard work over to your sons and daughters to continue on.

Now, re-read JimLennon’s assessment.

Without making any judgement’s at all about whether JimLennon’s assessment is right, the first attitude might be expected to fill the streets with fat humanlets, and the second, to empty them out.

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

*judgements. Sorry. Etc.

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I was 15 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term, and I remember all the dire warnings coming from his administration in the years following, about how Social Security was basically a dead man walking – back then, it was slated to run out of money in 2018, so I never once thought that it would be around for me to depend on when I was old enough to retire. Even though Reagan could not kill the “third rail of politics” back then, at least his administration provided for 401(k) plans and IRAs so that people could save on their own for retirement.

It amazes me that people still cling to a belief that Social Security will be there for them when they retire, or that there is actually any money in its trust fund. The Feds have been issuing IOUs to that trust fund for decades, and recently Nancy and Harry have been trying desperately to take over the >$1 trillion that is invested in 401(k) and IRA plans.

Not that it matters anyway, of course; once those individual retirement plans begin paying out, Bernanke’s artificially low interest rates will ensure that those retirement funds run out of money in no time at all. Meanwhile Nancy and Harry point to that same eventuality and use it as an excuse to nationalise private retirement plans, to keep them “safe”.

Strap yourself in tight, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride…

Wanderlust on January 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Without making any judgements at all about whether JimLennon’s assessment is right, the first attitude might be expected to fill the streets with fat humanlets, and the second, to empty them out.

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

I had to reread your comment a few times to make sure I understood what you were getting at. Hmm…

Imagine this: believing the world is a place where you and the people around you are growing and building, and where you and the people around you look at your own futures optimistically and enthusiastically and can’t wait to hand all your huge dreams and hard work over to your sons and daughters to continue on.

Yeah, I think I can safely say that I am nowhere near this optimistic about my future. Maybe I was when I was a teenager, but not now, 20 years later.

I can now see why, however, quite a few commenters took my initial comment as a rationalization for abortion, rather than a rationalization for keeping it in your pants until you’re ready to raise a family.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I can now see why, however, quite a few commenters took my initial comment as a rationalization for abortion, rather than a rationalization for keeping it in your pants until you’re ready to raise a family.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

It really wasn’t personal in any way. Your point of view was just so striking held up against the idealized, (idealistic?) old-school idea, and I wanted to note it.

Thinking we’re amazing might be a self-fulfilling thing. Thinking we’re in a vise might also be. Not just here; everywhere. That was what I was thinking. Not just you, but the west, is “hunkered down.” That might mean some things.

Anyway, that kind of thing. It was aside your main arguments throughout the thread. :)

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Agreed, but with all due respect, you don’t know my situation.

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM

I’ll give you a peek into mine. We were 20 and 22 when we got married already “in a family way,” as they used to say. The only thing we had between us were college loans. We eloped because I thought a wedding was a big ole waste of money since we needed to provide for ourselves and our child. This was in 1982. Unemployment in the town we lived led the nation at 19%. Interest rates on homes were in the double digits.

Could we afford this child? It didn’t matter, we had to. Oh, I was working making $11,000 a year, hubby still needed to graduate. It never occured to us to look into getting government help. I’ll spare you all the gory details but we scratched by and now are small business owners finally making it just at the precise time that Obama and crew have decided to demonize people like us.

But, I’m so glad that we had that baby and the three that followed in rapid succession. They made us who we are today… And, now (as Paul Harvey used to say) you know the rest of the story.

Fallon on January 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM

will mean that policymakers need to be more committed than ever to improving the quality of education and social services for all children.

But there IS a solution…more and bigger government!

Jackalope on January 29, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Kids are expensive to raise. Why would any responsible adult bring one into the world knowing that he or she couldn’t afford to raise it without welfare?

JimLennon on January 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM
The idea of putting the child up for adoption never enters the equation, does it?

Mitoch55 on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Until I grasped the full importance of Toure’s comments within the context of the larger argument, I could never figure out why adoption was such a problem for the Left. I mean, if you believe, as anyone other than Pro-Abortion, science deniers do, that miniature babies are real, why not forego abortion? There are numerous adoptive parents waiting for every “unwanted” child, so why isn’t the default position Life? It made no sense…until it dawned on me that Pro-Abortion Liberals would rather kill the product of their irresponsible behavior, than allow their DNA to fall into the hands of Pro-Life Conservative parents.

I tried to talk myself out of this, giving Liberals the benefit of the doubt, but the recent trend towards supporting abortion in the face of scientific revelations asserting the human-ness of unborn children, leads to only one conclusion. The Pro-Choice crowd recognizes the scientific reality, but has decided that ideology trumps life. WOW!

Kenz on January 29, 2013 at 1:57 AM

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Say, that inverted pyramid looks an awful lot like a classic Ponzi scheme.
Of course, it can’t be, cuz the Donks say so, ya racist gun nuts.

VelvetElvis on January 29, 2013 at 7:24 AM

i wish there were a way to opt out of SS. =( i don’t want to be a part of the system at all.

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I agree completely. I can usually shut up my liberal friends by saying I’ll completely opt out of SS if I can choose to put that money in my 401K fund. You can bash it all you want, but I guarantee I’ll have more money there than in SS when I retire (IF I ever get that chance). So why don’t liberals want me to have the CHOICE to opt out of the system?

(Answer… they’re not pro-choice, they’re pro-death)

dominigan on January 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM