The Vital Statistics report on 2018 Births shows the baby bust continues.
Key Numbers
- The provisional number of births for the United States in 2018 was 3,788,235, down 2% from 2017 and the lowest number of births in 32 years.
- The general fertility rate was 59.0 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 2% from 2017 and another record low for the United States.
- The total fertility rate declined 2% to 1,728.0 births per 1,000 women in 2018, another record low for the nation.
- Birth rates declined for nearly all age groups of women under 35, but rose for women in their late 30s and early 40s.
- The birth rate for teenagers aged 15–19 was down 7% in 2018 to 17.4 births per 1,000 women; rates declined for both younger (aged 15–17) and older (aged 18–19) teenagers.
The Wall Street Journal comments U.S. Births Fall to Lowest Level Since 1980s.
With the latest decline, births in the U.S. have fallen in 10 of the last 11 years since peaking in 2007, just before the recession. Many demographers believed that births would rebound as the economy recovered, but that trend hasn’t materialized.
Instead, experts say the continuing declines appear to be rooted in several trends, including teenagers and unmarried women having fewer babies, lower Hispanic fertility rates and the rise in women obtaining college degrees.
The decline has important implications for the U.S. economy and workforce. The total fertility rate—an estimate of the number of babies a woman would have over her lifetime—has generally remained below the “replacement” level of 2.1 since 1971. A fertility rate falling farther below replacement level means that, without enough immigrants, the U.S. could see population declines and a workforce too small to support a growing segment of retirees.
Youths Drive Decline
Abortion
Abortion doesn’t appear to be responsible for the birth decline. The Guttmacher Institute found that both the total number and the overall rate of abortions have fallen to their lowest levels since around the time that Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973. Guttmacher advocates for reproductive rights but its figures are considered reliable by abortion opponents and supporters alike.
Factors
The article cites birth control, education, and waiting longer.
Hope
Demographers hope that as the large millennial cohort, which this year will be between age 23 and 38, moves through their 30s, the birthrate will begin rising again.
But why?
Symptoms
The demographers confuse causes with symptoms.
The causes of the birthrate decline are not birth control or education. Both are symptoms of an attitude change coupled with economic reality.
Initial Cause
- Women decided they wanted to enter the workforce. This major attitude change was the initial driving force.
- Women needed to enter the work for for economic reasons. Thanks to Fed inflationary policies, it took two incomes to buy things.
The number of births rose from the early 1970s to the mid-2000s, but that masks the true trend as shown in the second chart. Birth rates have been declining since the early 1960s.
Contraceptives were an enabler, but an attitude change coupled with economic reality was the true driver.
Debt and Misplaced Hope
Demographers hope for a millennial rebound. I asked Why?
It’s amusing they cannot see the obvious: Student debt and attitudes about debt. Some label student debt a bubble.
Here is a chain of Tweets from yesterday.
Stagnation of It’s Own Making
Promises Gone Bust
Debt, more specifically attitudes about debt, is the number one reason that faith in millennials to have more kids is misplaced.
Millennials were told to get an education at any cost and it would work out.
It didn’t and won’t. Kids saddled with student debt have delayed home purchases, marriage, and family formation.
On top of that, the Fed’s inflationary tactics helped boomers with assets but severely punished millennials who cannot afford homes.
Attitudes, Attitudes, Attitudes
Even attitudes towards car ownership have changed. Once again it’s the cost of ownership.
Unlike their boomer parents, millennials do not trust debt, at least to the same degree. That is an attitude change the Fed is fighting and the demographers don’t even see.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
40 years of relentless inflation caused this. More inflation will lead to extinction.
we need MORE population growth, MORE sick consumerism in order achieve MORE Economic Growth ; one or two years of negative growth would make the debt bloated, ponzi scheme house of cards fall apart, the ever so clever Sapiens ape is caught up in the ever going faster threadmill of our pointless rat race….So like I said we do need M O R E of the same! GO for it : breed, work 20 hours a day, borrow or steal to keep the madness going ! Otherwise we’ re screwed…..
I remember seeing someone talk about fertility rates worldwide. Apparently in the last 50 years, EVERY country has seen fertility rates fall. That seems incredibly significant. If this trend continues much longer, it will be difficult to see how economies can sustain their level of advancement, as so much of it is predicated on a level of specialisation that can only happen with a large population.
yeah sure, ‘ in the last 50 years EVERY country has seen birth rates fall’…THAT must be the reason we almost TRIPLED our destructive presence on this by now half destroyed planet…in the last 50 years..
Perhaps you should consider the maths.
The change in population isnt solely determined by fertility rates and birth rates. We must also look at death rates. Those have generally fallen too, and that increases the population size. Now if the fertility rate falls below the replacement rate, that can lead to population still increasing for a time if death rates fall as well. Eventually though, it will lead to decreasing population.
Also, whilst fertility rates have fallen all over the world, the rates 50 years ago were pretty high. Looking at the CIA website, you can see that many countries still have fertility rates above the replacement rate.
If 2.1 is the rate needed to maintain a steady population over time, about half the countries in the world have a fertility rate lower than this.
You can see the delayed effect on nations population here.
Most countries in the world still have increasing populations.
The current direction of travel though is for birth rates to fall. If that continues, in 10 years time there will be many more countries with falling populations.
Why no numbers on Germanic or Francic birth rates? Let’s cut the crap and say Spanish Indian instead of Hispanic. The category was abused by white folks with Spanish surnames who got on the affirmative action gravy train and so now we have the category of non- white Hispanic. So lets drop the pretense and just say Spanish Indian. Thank you.
Weird. The local hospitals busiest areas are in the labor and delivery building. It was slow from 2009 to 2014. It has spiked since. This is in the 4th largest metro area in California. My wife quit OB deliveries because it was too ridiculous to keep doing deliveries and only get paid the same as office visits. I see no slowdown in births in our area which is has had an influx of young families from the bay area.
Marxism and prosperity have destroyed birth rates, which has happened throughout history. If the gloBull warming believers and eugenicist new their history, they wouldn’t need to push their propaganda to control population growth. Nature, including human nature, takes care of everything. Throw in the coming cooling cycle, which will cause crop failures and the associated famines and plagues, due to malnutrition, and the distractive wars that are needed by govt in economic hard times, and I don’t think society needs any more help from power-hungry politicians. As is always the case when govt gets involved, they will cause the cyclical decline in population to overshoot to the downside. Knowing the clueless bureaucrats, they will say it is their grand plan to increase wages, by decreasing the supply of labor.
The ebb and flow of births is HIGHLY correlated with major bull and bear markets. It’s social mood that is the invisible commonality. Happy people first buy stocks, and then have children. Sad people sell stocks first, then stop having children.
Debt, destruction of the social contract, trickle-down fiscal and monetary policy. With wealth inequality near Depression era levels, not surprising to see the birth rate decline. Who besides the top 10 percent would want to bring children into the world. The standard of living is declining for a majority of the U.S. population.
I’d like to read that contract! I did not sign nor agree to any contract. They take our money at gunpoint and throw the intransigent in a cage.
Two don’t work to afford to live. One works to afford to live and the other works to pay the taxes. Check it out. In most two income homes, the lesser income just about covers the tax for both.
Wealth never trickles up. You never get a job from a poor man.
I’m sure that’s how it worked on the Antebellum Plantations current day financialized progressivism so lovingly and dutifully attempts to recreate, as well……….
Slaves were husbanded with utmost care. Slaved received food, housing, clothing, medical care, and guidance far beyond their previous suffering in Africa. A slave cost more than $1,000 while unimproved government land sold for fifty cents per acre and wages were a dollar per day. You may condemn slavery though it was hardly different from wage slavery today. Slaves were safer and had better family lives than the majority of their free progeny today. Stories of mistreatment were Civil War propaganda because mistreatment was rare. Dangerous work was done by Irishmen for fifty cents because a dead slave was a grave loss. Slaves were sold by Africans because slaves were the only thing the Africans had to trade for cloth, sugar, rope, steel, etc. Slaves were legal property unconstitutionally confiscated without regard for the takings clause. Slaves owe reparations to their former owners for the good times they enjoyed and the loss to the owners.
When the breeding age can’t find jobs due to, amongst other things, rampant and out of control H-1B visa abuse, its no surprise that they’re not breeding.
Top-notch STEM professionals should be easily able to have a stay-at-home wife. Yet most can’t even find jobs these days, nevermind get married and have kids.
Another big problem is that women much prefer to marry upward. As women increasingly became part of the workforce and earned solidly middle class salaries, a shortage of high salary men became apparent. Not only that, some of the high salary men are current or former H1Bs, and American women have shown little interest in marrying Indian and Chinese guys. That limits the pool even further.
It’s a supply and demand issue, and there aren’t nearly enough executive level guys to go around. If women can’t find what they want, many of them will refuse to play the game since they can easily exist on their own. Why settle for less?
Too many people here now! Fix it with migration? Had it with this never-ending growth story bs!
There are only two ways in which an economy can grow. Increase the population or increase the productivity. Just saying…
Many demographers thought there’d be a rebound as the economy recovered…
Maybe the recovery isn’t real 😉
I’d be interested in actually hearing from women on this issue. Why put off childbearing? For some reason, Mishtalk is a sausage fest. I guess the pretty chicks just aren’t into Austrian economics.
Mish should write more articles about hair and nails.
Too many “chics” that I see during my commute are seriously overweight while still in their twen-thirties, which presumably rules them out for meaningful reproduction rate. I haven’t tried to talk to any about Austrian economics…
Hello there, I am a lady who follows Mish. I’ve read the site a long time, even before the GFC (I can remember I liked reading BlackSwan’s comments, where did the old commenters go hm?). Anyway, I just wanted to say that my husband and I are in our 40s, married for almost 20 years and we don’t have kids. Why? Because it never happened. Why? I don’t know. We never could find a medical reason. This is more common than people think and I know of many more women like me. I also have friends/family my age who wanted a LOT of kids and after trying (even after rounds of IVF) they had only 1. That’s it. Something is wrong, really wrong. I see a lot of anger towards women because of this issue and I just ask that people please keep in mind that a lot of us are just playing the hand that God dealt us. It is what it is. It can drive a lot of women crazy. I try to think positive. Keep up the good work Mish, I have learned a lot over the years thanks to you!
I am recently divorced but, despite being nearly 67, I’d like to meet a lady over 30 but still of child-bearing age (or has frozen some of her eggs). Looks aren’t that important to me anymore but intelligence is.
Here’s my offer. As a retiree, I shall raise and educate the children while the lady pursues her career. I shall use the teaching methods I learned at the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia. If the lady doesn’t have time for pregnancy and birth, we’ll hire a surrogate mother.
I am financially secure and, if I kick the bucket, at least my genes were good enough to get me this far.
Warning: I tend to be ‘messy’ according to most women.
I agree with everything Mish said but would go even further. The specter of divorce looms large, along with the big financial hit it entails. From personal experience I can say that divorce is no joke, it’s a calamitous life event that takes a while to recover from, both financially and otherwise.
Too many of us have failed and younger people have watched us, learning that marriage/kids are an enormous risk. Heck, search for MGTOW on YouTube or anywhere and you’ll see a mountain of horror stories. I don’t endorse their movement, but there are many sounding the alarm online and there is some truth to what they say.
As for Mish’s correct statement that free benefits and unlimited immigration do not mix well, I would add that economic stagnation and no-fault divorce are also a toxic brew, particularly for men.
Women are looking for a man who can pay off her $30K student loan and take on a 200K mortgage. A man with a $30K student loan is ineligible .
Similarly a man with a $30K student loan hesitates to take on another $30K student loan, a $200K mortgage, $1,000/month alimony payments, and $1,000/month child support.
I recently overheard two young women speaking favorably of prenup agreements. The word is out. A woman has zero chance of marriage without a prenup agreement. I suggest women post their prenup gambit on line.
You ask, “what is there to pop” in the student loan issue? The answer is hidden in plain sight, making it easy to overlook. Once student loans became such that you can’t get away from them in bankruptcy, they became much, much easier to get, since creditworthiness no longer mattered. As a result, any student just had to sign a paper, and everything was taken care of, housing, tuition, books, and there was nothing to worry about, right? What could possibly go wrong?
The result was a perfectly conventional bubble: Demand for college exploded. There was boom in construction, a growth in enrollment, and salaries, and a dramatic increase in costs of tuition, housing, and books. Even adjusted for inflation, tuition costs have gone up 3-6 times over the last thirty years. The bubble could easily be popped by making it harder to get student loans. Enrollment would fall, and colleges would compete based on affordability. Colleges that overbuilt in the bubble would struggle, or close, but in the end we’d have a leaner, stronger university system, one that once again focused on the quality of the education, and on delivering it affordably.
So much pain… But we can avoid it. We can have free college. That way we don’t have to pop the bubble, and we can just make it bigger.
Government mandated Affirmative Action requires universities to graduate 80 IQ’s in the same proportion as normal 115 IQ college students. Universities had to establish expensive degree programs for the mentally retarded in order to meet the quota. The cost of education doubled. The value of a university degree declined. Student loans were distributed proportionately as well.
The USArmy has determined that an 80 or below IQ individual cannot be trained to contribute positively to a combat mission. Neither can he contribute to corporate success. Neither can he pay off his loan.
US corporations are required to hire their token ten percent quota of retards and promote them proportionately. Quality suffers. I buy automobiles designed and manufactured in Germany or Japan.
Scandalous that retards should be afforded the chance to earn a living. What were they thinking?
“We can have free college.”
Teachers don’t work for free. But education is nearly free on the internet. It just needs accreditation. Only science lab work needs to be done in a classroom.
“Teachers don’t work for free. ” I wonder if anyone has every measured the productivity of college teachers.
“…productivity of college teachers…”
Productivity is measured in output per person-hour. Divide the nation’s output GDP by the number of hours worked.
No way to do that just for teachers as schools also waste a lot of money on principals, counselors, administrators, janitors, maintenance.
The output of college attendees, due to their college training, would also be impossible to measure.
I dont mind free college, but increase the difficulty of the curriculum so the degree will still have it’s value. Thanks.
I have never forgotten a story that my father told me about his first day in college. He said they have a meeting of all Freshmen in a huge auditorium, and the Dean said “take a good look at the person to your left, and the person to your right, because by next year, one of them will be gone.” They admitted a great number of people, but being admitted was no guarantee that you would graduate; you had to do the work, and you had to learn.
The biggest error in college education today, in my opinion, is the policy that if you are good enough to get in, you are good enough to graduate, and then making the path easy. Provide as many as possible with the opportunity, but only graduate those that are qualified.
Even in rackets, the customer is always right…. He’s the one who pays for the party, after all. Or, more accurately in our version of a financialized dystopia, he’s the excuse the racketeers use to make everyone else pay by way of debasement.
“We can have free college.”
No you cant. Someone has to pay. It might not be the person who benefits from the college, but someone will pay.
Normally in economics, if you have a system that allows you to shift the cost from those who incur the cost to someone else, then the system overall will be economically less efficient. For example, if I could shift all of my costs on to you and you could do the same to me, we would make outrageous choices and impoverish each other. Systems can cope with a certain level of cost shifting, but too much and everything breaks down.
3 ‘Free’ years of education for everyone, with the resulting price increases in the cost of that education due to extra demand and the resulting decrease in the value of the output of that education due to increasing supply, takes a massive toll on the overall economic output of the nation running such a system.
I’m sorry, leicestersq, if my sarcasm wasn’t obvious. I agree with what you’ve said. Note, though, that we already have 12 years of “free” education. Note, also, that being free, it has been devalued.
Amazing.
Was thinking the same thing when I saw the declining birthrate story…the cause is economic opportunity for women increasing, declining for men and economic realities of having children now require two incomes vs. one back 30+ years ago. Children can be wonderful but are a lot of work and frequently are inconsistent with personal goals, particularly for women who need marriage less, inflation which makes all but supporting yourself difficult and half of all kids have seen their parents go through recessions and divorce which deter household formation.
excellently stated!
Thanks
A decade or two ago I ran in to some research of lower birth rates world wide. They found the best correlation was to women’s education rates. Not econ/income/jobs/etc. Not shifted social roles/attitudes/etc. But a good match to female education. Worldwide. So, independent of culture/location/genetics/etc.
Causation? Things like this co-evolve. A causes B, which causes A, etc. Chicken or egg.
I have thought part of the problem was to much indebtedness mainly from college loans causing a delay. This happened to me, I delayed home buying and starting a family until I had the financial ability to do so. However, in Europe where most college is free they are having the same demographic problem also. Maybe the theory that more women in the labor force because everything costs so much, thanks to the fed, is interfering with the formation of traditional families.
The elephant in the room:
Free benefits and unlimited immigration do not and never will mix
Your grasp of math makes you a bigot.
Free benefits, period, don’t mix. Not with anything resembling freedom. Simply because benefits don’t fall from trees. Hence aren’t free.
Some dude working his rear off, don’t magically owe you anything more than he owes someone else, just because you happen to be born on the same side of some arbitrary line on a map as him.
Just get rid of “benefits,” by the specific mechanism of getting rid of any entity asymmetrically powerful enough to rob some people in order to hand the loot to some others, and you’re home free. Immigration doesn’t figure into it at all.
Making most immigration legal is the one act that would boost economic growth the most over the longer term.
Regardless of why the Baby Bust, allowing immigrants to take the lower paying jobs no one wants boosts growth automatically. Employers make more, workers make money to spend.
Unfortunately the bigots say immigrants cost more then they contribute. That is absolutely untrue. The US Treasury collects billions each year from illegals using phony social security cards and yet pays out no benefits.
There is one reason to limit immigration: Bigotry.
Most illegal immigrants are paid under the table.
If most illegal immigrants are paid under the table, who collected the data to support this statement, and how?
The US already has plenty of immigration and is more tolerant of immigration than Mexico and other Latin countries.
I am bigoted against uncivilized behavior, and ignorance.
Boosting productivity is what will boost economic growth the most over the long term.
Adding more people may increase the total GDP but it is not guaranteed to increase the ‘GDP per person’ which is what really matters and is required if standards of living are to stay the same or increase.