A demographic tidal wave
When you look at the numbers by race, you see yet another component of our fertility dynamics. Among non-Hispanic white women, the fertility rate remained roughly unchanged last year. The big drop came among Hispanic women. This development is probably the result of two phenomena: (1) The Great Recession put the brakes on illegal immigration from Mexico and South America. Over the last two decades, there immigrants have accounted for a disproportionate share of American fertility, so any decline in immigration is going to result in a decline in our overall fertility numbers. (2) One of the remarkable aspects of non-native Hispanic fertility is that our Hispanic immigrants arrive with very high fertility rates—but they regress to the native average very quickly.
So in that sense, the decline of our Hispanic fertility rate that we see in the new data is probably the beginning of a larger trend which we’ll continue to see as immigration continues to slow and the Hispanic immigrants who remain in America continue to move toward the mean.
Finally, buried deep in the report is the most telling number of all: In the last year the number of “first” births dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in America. What does that mean? It means that we’re slowly bifurcating into a country where there are two kinds of adults: people who have children, and people who do not. The people who have children are inclined to have seconds and thirds. But for the first time in our nation’s history, we’re growing a sizable cohort of adults who remain childless their entire lives.
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
I blame BOOOSH !!!!
Nevermind.
pambi on October 13, 2012 at 6:59 PM
It’s way worse than you think
HotAirian on October 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM
To those people that choose to have no kids: who do they think is going to look after them when they’re very old? The state? A nursing home? I’m talking about writing their checks, managing their affairs, looking out for their best interest, etc. Someone please explain.
visions on October 13, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Hey, here’s a great idea: Let’s use taxpayer dollars to fund contraceptives and abortions.
Odysseus on October 13, 2012 at 7:15 PM
I have noticed there are many, many more ads on TV for pet supplies than for baby supplies.
This means something.
PattyJ on October 13, 2012 at 7:18 PM
We will all have Muslim monkey Butlers to attend us in old age.
BL@KBIRD on October 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM
So, will those with no children will make more $$ (DINKs) over their lifetimes and yet need the “state” to care for them in their old age?
IrishEyes on October 13, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Duh! When you subsidize something you get more of it. When you penalize something you get less.
Life is complex, but it is not so complex as to not be understandable in general.
You steal 15.2% of a person’s wealth in order to pay for people to retire earlier than they otherwise would. There are going to be consequences for this.
Who is this person that you are stealing from and who is this person who is being given free money?
The person being stolen from is someone’s child. In life what happens is you are raised by a mother and father, they teach you well, so you will be successful in producing wealth. This child who has been raised well in a loving home will grow up and work to earn money. They will start their own life, have their own children. At some point, it is likely their parents or grandparents will need help. Unfortunately, they have to pay for the government they have at the local, state and federal level, as well as then having their money stolen to pay for someone who never had children. Thus they are less able to care for their own family.
Who is this person being given stolen money? Well, more and more it is someone who chose to abort any children that may have gotten past birth control. They do this because children take resources, and they see that any children they have will be burdened heavily by the local, state and federal taxes as well as then having the money the children may have had left over to help them in their times of need stolen to be given to someone else. Why subsidize someone else with your own children when you can be subsidized by someone else’ children. They then spend all their money on luxury and enjoyment, knowing someone else has their back.
Now, not everyone does this. But because you make having children less valuable to a potential parent more people on average will chose not to have kids. It is basic and normal.
If you want more of something subsidize it. If you want less, tax is. Social Security and Medicare are a tax on child rearing plain and simple.
astonerii on October 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM
To those people who would question this personal decision in others: who do you think is going to pay for and watch the little basterds you would rather we have when they’re very young? The state? A child care center? I’m talking about the fact that we don’t have any money to write checks that don’t bounce, or that dealing with children – particularly when many of us can’t afford to get married – is certainly not in our best interest here and now. Someone please explain why the fact some of us don’t want kids is any of your business anyway.
As far as being old, those who opt to partake in personal responsibility do so with or without children. That will involve a trusted friend, or hired assistant to manage the affairs and privately invested money when we grow to become seniors. Perhaps with the increasing numbers of us who are disinclined toward children, such a position will be a growing field among career options in the 2050s.
Gingotts on October 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Um, Hispanics, yes, but what about other ethnic groups? Muslims, for example? Does sharia come to us with that changing demograpic (per Mark Steyn)?
IrishEyes on October 13, 2012 at 7:28 PM
I ask myself the very same question, late at night when the house is dark and the fears for the future creep in. We didn’t choose to have no kids, but we couldn’t have any of our own and we’re too old to adopt, so it amounts to the same thing.
I have no idea who will give a damn about us when we’re too old to manage our own affairs. Maybe we’ll have to rely on care-bots such as are being developed in Japan, which currently has the second-highest median age in the world (after Monaco, oddly). Maybe we’ll just eat a bullet apiece. I don’t know.
Mary in LA on October 13, 2012 at 7:29 PM
I take solace knowing that people like you really shouldn’t reproduce in the first place.
Such a position filled by whom? Robots?
HotAirian on October 13, 2012 at 7:35 PM
Relax, my friend. Thanks for your insight. I didn’t mean to come off judgmental. I’m just genuinely curious.
visions on October 13, 2012 at 7:36 PM
What I see happening is working people are either unable to afford to have children, or only able to afford small families, while people who are living off of the government teat are pumping out children in the double digits with many different baby mammas.
OxyCon on October 13, 2012 at 7:36 PM
15.2% minimum of your wealth creation is handed out to old people who retire at the behest of the government and are subsidized by that 15.2%. Of course you do not have much spare money. 15.2% of your wealth would be a good amount.
More non producers consuming causes the cost of things to be higher than it would otherwise be. More aborted babies not working causes the cost of things to be higher than it would otherwise be.
The real question is this. If government was not subsidizing early retirement, who would be able to afford to not have children.
I could care less if you do not want to have children. All I ask is that you take responsibility for the choice and fund your own life and stop asking government to steal 15.2% of my children’s wealth creation to fund your life.
There are plenty of those today. I have someone do my lawn care for me. Who will be your servant? The same person being paid by your stolen Social Security check money that they paid to you? Exactly how many can you afford when there is only 1.75 private sector workers for every retiree (in 2010 and will be far worse by 2050)? Probably not many.
astonerii on October 13, 2012 at 7:48 PM
So your answer for this would be for me to have children I don’t really want, and can’t afford, sending me to the government teat in my 20s rather than my 60s? 18 years… ah, screw that, these days it’s 26 years of caring for another eater or several so that they can pay for you and me in the future.
We’re in agreement that the government answer toward the retirement system is broken, but declaring universal child rearing to be the solution is similarly wrong-headed. That’s just adding another level into the pyramid scheme. It’s all going to topple sooner or later, mostly likely sooner – well before my decision not to have children plays a role in it for me directly. Either I work into my 70s or we go the Hollande route toward retirement at 60, a 75% tax rate, and complete financial stupidity.
I will however qualify my anti-child decision by saying that abortion does not factor into it. If it gets that far, there’s a kid around whether I want it or not (assuming I didn’t mate with one who has no regard for the sanctity of life). Of course, that again goes to the more important issue of personal responsibility… I don’t put myself in such a position where abortion could come up. Our generation in the future will have to take care to keep themselves in a position where we can pay for our own retirement, because the system in place won’t be there.
Gingotts on October 13, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Like I said retard… I DON”T CARE IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN. PAY FOR YOUR OWN LIFE!
astonerii on October 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I should be impregnating women willy-nilly or marrying the wrong person or doing whatever I could to increase the population.
40 years old, never married, no kids… now you’re going to judge me?
Go ahead, explain why being responsible makes me a bad person. Explain why promiscuous unprotected sex would have been a better choice for me and for society.
Take your time if you like… I’ll wait.
gekkobear on October 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM
On the brighter side. My argument is not directed AT you, you just had the points that irritate me.
I am just tired of my nation raping people and leaving them destitute in order to give luxury and leisure to people for not other reason than they made 65 circles around the sun.
Sorry for being a jerk to you. Your points are just irritating to me.
Like I said. People who do not have children do not spend as much money, that money needs to be responsibly used to ensure they can care for themselves in their old age. Basically, use less than you produce in your early years, and have abundance in your old age and when you are in less than ideal situations.
I’ll be having as many children as God blesses me with. 1 so far. I am not young, 43, so I put it off way too long. Then again, as long as I am healthy enough, I will be creating wealth for others and trading that for things I need to live.
astonerii on October 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Paying for one’s own life is a value that comes with or without desire to reproduce. I’d also like to think that, even with your decision to have children, you would be heeding your own advice and putting away money for your own retirement. Telling your kids, or worse other peoples’ kids to pay for your old age isn’t exactly responsible either. Money has to be used responsibly by everybody, with or without children. Whether or not it is irritating to you I just believe that the issue is less with having children and more with making rational decisions with one’s own finances, rather than relying on the increasingly long gamble that a broken system will survive another generation.
Of course, putting away for retirement becomes easier when the government isn’t taking growing portions of our money to throw into the system…. by the way, also a top reason that having large families appears feasible to a shrinking percentage of the populace.
Gingotts on October 13, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Your right,
I did not read what you wrote fully and added my personal into what you wrote.
Like I said above, sorry for that.
astonerii on October 13, 2012 at 8:41 PM
The Dinks are the most likely to have saved up for retirement, and not have to live off a piddly Social InSecurity check. They know good and well that they won’t have children to dragoon into providing free eldercare, so they plan accordingly.
MelonCollie on October 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Yeah, don’t worry about it. It’s easy to get frustrated when looking at the bureaucratic stupidity out of D.C. God bless, and best wishes for your family.
Gingotts on October 13, 2012 at 8:57 PM
I don’t know. One year tells us this? All those child-bearing-age females are still here. Suppose theyhave their first children this year, or next?
J.E. Dyer on October 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM
You only need one anchor baby.
itsnotaboutme on October 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Its because our tax burden has hit a point where people are consciously deciding they can’t afford to have kids.
How ironic that millions of people came here to give their kids a better life, only to see the family line die out before they themselves die.
KMC1 on October 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM
I love Hot Air.
DrMagnolias on October 14, 2012 at 2:29 AM