Skip to comments.U.S. Birth Rates Remain Depressed
Posted on 03/14/2013 7:27:47 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
As the Wall Street Journal reports, the latest Census Bureau data suggest that the recession-related decline in migration is being reversed, but demographer Kenneth Johnson of the University of New Hampshire says that bad economic times still seem to be depressing the birth rate.
Last year, he calculated, 1,135 U.S. counties 36% of all counties recorded more deaths than births. There havent been so many counties with what demographics call natural decrease in all of U.S. history, he says. Last year for the first time in U.S history, deaths exceeded births in two entire states. More people died (12,857) than were born (12,754) in Maine, while West Virginia has had more deaths than births for a number of years.
Once natural decrease begins in a county, Mr. Johnson says, it is likely to recur.
With few young adults and a growing older population, the future viability of many natural-decrease areas is not encouraging, he said. Economic development, an influx of minorities, high levels of civic engagement and community cohesion have broken the downward spiral of natural decrease in some areas, but many remain at risk.
Natural decrease is more prevalent because residents of the U.S. are having fewer babies. There were 3,954,000 births last year compared to a record 4,316,000 in 2006-2007, a decline of 8.3% in just five years.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Well I wanted 7 kids but only got 3 because it;s all I can afford and I dont; want welfare.
Imagine white conservative Americans having 7 to 9 kids each like they used to.
The left would go mad LOL
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I know I’ll get flamed, but Conservatives SHOULD have as many children as possible. I would be willing to voluntarily support a family with food, free child care, etc. The illegals do it, why not us?
Well, they would say that you are “SELFISH”. *gasp*
There is a scene in the movie “Chaplin”, if my memory serves me correctly, where Chaplin is at a dinner party. One of the elite ladies at the table boasts that the disabled and infirmed costs ‘the state’ too much money.
After Muslims enter a country they have multiple wives (Sharia law) and increase their population as fast as possible. This needs to be countered by increasing the non-Muslim, Conservative numbers.
“I know Ill get flamed, but Conservatives SHOULD have as many children as possible.”
I totally agree, and I think the reasons are obvious.
But do you mind if I ask...why would you think your post would invite harsh criticism?
well if I could have afforded more kids and maybe 10 I would have.
Mostly boys to help me out when I get older but at least I;ve added 3 more conservatives and my oldest will be able to vote in the next election and he;s got his friends to agree with him on politics to so count that as more conservatives LOL
A victory for socialism and artificial means of induced sterility.
We are just beginning to reap the whirlwind.
Sounds like you’ve raised some good kids. When they get old enough.....I’ll buy them a ‘Boddies’. ‘Cream of Manchester!’! And not that crap they sell in the can with the ‘widget’. *chuckle* <3
Most US citizens remain depressed, too.
“I would be willing to voluntarily support a family with food, free child care, etc.”
Where were you when I was young??
When good folk don’t have kids the bad certainly will. Thus you get......
I wrote it poorly. I meant Conservatives should use the welfare system like the illegals do.
Lol! Working my a** off probably.
As a plus, this would cause the left to denounce welfare, as they would rightly see it as supporting Conservative “breeding”.
The liberal reaction to this article is:
I wanted four and got two. I married in my mid-30s and was too old to conceive any more than that. I don’t think that will happen to my kids. I’m going to make sure they know that family life needs to get going sooner than that.
I don’t get the math.
4 million born.
2.5 million died.
1.0 new immigrant citizens.
So, the USA population increased by 2.5 million.
That’s a gain of almost 1%.
At that rate, our population will be 600 million by 2100.
We’ll be past 1 billion before 2200.
“I know Ill get flamed, but Conservatives SHOULD have as many children as possible. I would be willing to voluntarily support a family with food, free child care, etc. The illegals do it, why not us?”
I’ve never advocated having children for the freebies, but conservatives should have them because people who are completely unfit are doing it somehow (and their spawn will be the next generation if we don’t breed). Children are subsidized by tax deductions (which helps), and nothing gives me more of a sense of purpose (at work, in church, at home) than my children. I’m tired of people choosing not to have children while they whine about the number of immigrants around them (for which they themselves are partly to blame).
“Responsible people are breeding themselves out of existence.”
Well put; at the same time they are subsidizing the welfare bastards and anchor babies with their taxes.
Well with people getting married to the same sex what would you expect.
It’s my fault. I had my youngest in 2007, and my body refuses to sustain another pregnancy. On the plus side, I’ve gotten to try many wines and bourbons since no more pregnancies. :)
Average number of children born to a woman is hovering around 1.9. Replacement is 2.0 to 2.2, depending on child mortality rates.
Births are declining in big liberal cities. Families with children have been leaving big liberal cities by the millions and moving to exurbia since the early 1990s. That’s because liberal cities are not friendly toward families with children. Big liberal cities are dying, while others like Detroit are dead.
This has been known by demographers for two decades, but liberals shun reality and won’t speak of it.
It’s also known that Seattle has more dogs than children.
You could give gift cards to grocery and other stores, buy diapers, offer free babysitting, etc.
I have already told my three kids that I'll do everything I can to help them have and maintain their families, including giving up my house for them if need be. This is our future country, and it deserves every bit of effort we can pour into it.
What confuses me is that with a 1.9 number in 2012, USA births exceed USA deaths by 60%!
Obviously, people are living longer lives, and we experience baby booms or baby boomlets from time to time.
But 60% is a huge number.
Seems like it would take centuries for that number to fall below zero and turn negative.
Total fertility rate is based on the average number of women over a lifetime. The number of children born per year is a reflection of the total fertility rate and the demographics of the population. When you have a lot of young women having their 2 kids, the population looks like it is growing.
We are seeing a filling out of the population pyramid. The baby boomers are hitting their 60s, and that generation is twice the size of the WW2 generation. Baby boomers average 1.7-1.9 kids each. Their children, in their 20s and 30s, are averaging 1.8-2.1 kids, depending on race. So the biggest generation is hitting the age where they start dying off, but have a life expectancy of 80 or more, baring Obamacare.
The death rate will increase when the Baby Boomers start dying en masse. Then, barring immigration, we will have a stable population or even fewer births than deaths.
Hans Rosling’s TED talk on “peak child” explains this much better than I can.
Same thing with my cousin who lives in Portland. He owns like five dogs with his wife. Funny cuz I remember when he was "normal".
Yep. We’ll experience depopulation like Russia. But not probably for another 20 years when Baby Boomers start to die en masse.
Very good explanation and link.