No reason to panic about a dip in the birth rate

The Boston Globe ^ | December 23, 2012

[MinorityRepublican]

I have no doubt that Jeff Jacoby’s concern about America is genuine (“Beware the baby bust generation,” Op-ed, Dec. 16). However, I think his panic is misplaced.

For one, the birth rate during the baby boom was the aberration. In the late 1970s, America’s total fertility rate was at its lowest, at 1.79 births per woman. It inched back up in the following three decades, and has only recently declined again, to about 1.9. Most likely, this is a function of the economy, and the rate will rise again.

The average American woman wants two children — unchanged from the 1970s.

The Census Bureau projects that we’ll grow from 312 million now to 420.3 million by 2060.

Yes, our nation is aging, but we survived the Civil War. We survived world wars. We survived the Great Depression and 9/11. Surely our nation will long endure even though we baby boomers are getting AARP cards.

Meanwhile, 15 million American children live in poverty. Instead of shaming women into having more babies, why don’t we ensure that the kids we’ve got have health care and a great education? That would likely boost our gross domestic product more than would a sudden run on diapers.

[doc1019]

No reason to panic about a dip in the birth rate

I must have missed the memo ... was I supposed to be in a panic?

[Tax-chick]

Panic is tediously useless. However, anyone looking back at historical birthrates should recognize that, in the past, we did not have a society depending on “the government” to support those who were not economically independent.

Once, there were families. Families cared for their members, including the dependent elderly, the dependent young, and the dependent incapacitated. I should say, “some families,” because some families didn’t, and the helpless died.

If a family doesn’t care for a helpless person, why should anyone expect “the public” to care? They don’t. The helpless will die. Wake up, people.

[familyop]

Those panicking about overpopulation shouldn’t be so afraid of building onward and upward. They’re afraid of technology and even more afraid of the technologically inclined.

[Essie]

When the total fertility rate drops below replacement, a society will slowly wither away. A society that has too many older people and too few young people is a slow disaster in the making. Japan is not replacing itself, and this will have a very negative effect on this country.

The person who wrote this article is either uninformed or simply lying. Women in general don’t want a certain number of children. Liberals have less children than conservatives, but conservatives are foolish. They put the time and effort into raising children and then many allow our educational system to turn their children into liberals.

Europe, Japan, Korea, and many other industrialized nations are not producing enough children, and it will have dire consequences for them. Not tomorrow, but in the future. Should we be concerned? In my opinion, without enough people there is no future.

[cricket]

Best health care and education? Don't think so. . .there is no 'best' to be had on the egalitarian playing field. No better; best; for that matter.

Just remember; the hand that rocks the cradle rules. Who might 'ruling' America; or the world; for that matter? Good parents - or 'Nanny protected/controlled' Government by way of bureaucrats and those totalitarian, power addicted?

And while at it; check out the birth - and conversion - forced or not; and what they do with those who do not convert - and how that impacts 'dominance' in a population per population impact of Muslims. 'Majority rules' as does 'power'. . .

Would like to be as optimistic as you appear to be; and on a 'good day'; can pull it off! Otherwise; it is all a bit sobering.

[Tailback]

The potential for schadenfreude in the comments section is delicious. Simply ask the Bosten Brahmins, “Who is having babies and what does that mean for your standard of living?”

People having babies now are Mormons, evangelical Christians, (some)Catholics, and welfare earners.

Now we all know that the uber liberal secularists view religious folks as backwards and under-educated right? Simply tell them that those demographics mean that the movie “Idiocracy” is not a comedy, it is a documentary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

`

[VoiceOfBruck]

Check out Population Pyramids.

You can break it down by country or region and a year between 1950 and 2100 (projected)