PDA

View Full Version : U.S. birth rate plummets to its lowest level since 1920



wazi99
11-29-2012, 04:13 PM
The U.S. birth rate plunged last year to a record low, with the decline being led by immigrant women hit hard by the recession, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/).

The overall birth rate declined by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, with a decrease of 6 percent among U.S.-born women and 14 percent among foreign-born women. The decline for Mexican immigrant women was more extreme, at 23 percent. The overall birth rate is now at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records.


The decline could have far-reaching implications for U.S. economic and social policy. A continuing decline would challenge long-held assumptions that births to immigrants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-minority-babies-are-now-majority-in-united-states/2012/05/16/gIQA1WY8UU_story.html)will help maintain the U.S. population and provide the taxpaying work force needed to support the aging baby boomer generation.

Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-birth-rate-plummets-to-its-lowest-since-1920/2012/11/29/ee7e8d16-3a3f-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html?hpid=z1



This is a serious issue as we count on a larger tax base to pay for social polices for future generations. The top heavy retirement group may become even more top heavy soon.

So do you think US citizens will have more babies and the issue will be fixed? Immigrants will once again start having more kids? Or will we become badly top heavy when it comes to social security recipients vs tax payers?

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 04:16 PM
Demographics is a large reason why our entitlement programs will fail over time.

Chloe
11-29-2012, 04:20 PM
Probably not the worst thing to be honest. Overpopulation is a big problem worldwide and the US does not have unlimited space for more and more people.

Mister D
11-29-2012, 04:28 PM
Probably not the worst thing to be honest. Overpopulation is a big problem worldwide and the US does not have unlimited space for more and more people.

Overpopulation is a problem for the undeveloped world.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 04:29 PM
Probably not the worst thing to be honest. Overpopulation is a big problem worldwide and the US does not have unlimited space for more and more people.

Whether the US is overpopulated or not doesn't change the fact that less people working will make it impossible for the US to meet its entitlement commitments as they are currently designed / promised.

Personally, I don't think that too many people is the problem specifically; it is too many poor people.

wazi99
11-29-2012, 04:40 PM
Probably not the worst thing to be honest. Overpopulation is a big problem worldwide and the US does not have unlimited space for more and more people.

I honestly do not think Overpopulation will happen in today's world. Europe is seeing decreasing population and people think the same thing will happen in the US. China is looking at ending the one child per family rule because of the negative effects.


"China has paid a huge political and social cost for the policy, as it has resulted in social conflict, high administrative costs and led indirectly to a long-term gender imbalance at birth," Xinhua said, citing the report.

Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/31/china-thinktank-abolition-one-child-policy

No matter what happens in China they will see a short term population drop as for every 100 women there are 120 men. That means 20 men will die single with our kids assuming every women marries and has kids. Read more here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ns/world_news/t/china-grapples-legacy-its-missing-girls/#.ULfWh4Zmwmw

Even Aferica is seeing falling birth rates.


Falling birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa. Read more here: http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/D/200003486.html

All you have to do is look at Japan to see the issues with decreasing populations.


A decrease in tax revenue is one reason for the increase in deficits. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Japanese economy entered a long period of stagnation dubbed ‘the lost decades’ (http://www.economist.com/node/21538745). In these years, the tax revenue that had once reached 60 trillion yen (US$762 billion) fell to 40 trillion yen (US$508 billion). This coincided with an increase in public expenditure — public investment in particular — that aimed to counter the recession the country was undergoing. This changed from 2001 when Japan turned to fiscal consolidation under the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, which cut public investment in half. Despite these efforts, deficits continue to rise due to the significant cost associated with sustaining the social security system.


The nationwide social security system established in 1961 has made great contributions to post-war Japanese society. For example, in 1950 Japan’s average life expectancy — of 58 years for men and 61.5 years for women — was the shortest among the advanced countries. Today, Japan enjoys the world’s longest life expectancy (83 years). Two causes are to be credited with this improvement: the steady rise in average income in post-war Japan, and social security.
But the social security system now faces serious financing problems due to rapid ageing. While the major beneficiaries of the system are people aged 65 years and older, it is the working population (20–64 years) who pays the majority of taxes and social security contributions. This is to say that ageing simultaneously brings about a decrease in revenues and an increase in payments. This obviously poses a challenge. The ratio of the aged to the working population is expected to be nearly one to one by 2050. According to the UN, Japan is ageing faster than any other nation (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2009/WPA2009_WorkingPaper.pdf). Ageing is not unique to Japan (China will face the same problem this century), but the problem is more pressing here than elsewhere.

Read more here: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/21/japans-aging-population-and-public-deficits/

Chris
11-29-2012, 06:32 PM
http://i.snag.gy/Pg4DY.jpg

(To put that in perspective tho', that's like reporting President and Congress are haggling over the rate of increasing spending.)

wazi99
11-29-2012, 07:27 PM
http://i.snag.gy/Pg4DY.jpg

(To put that in perspective tho', that's like reporting President and Congress are haggling over the rate of increasing spending.)

That chart clearly shows how quickly population growth is slowing. Let's hope that levels off or slow down.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 07:30 PM
That chart clearly shows how quickly population growth is slowing. Let's hope that levels off or slow down.

It depends. We need educated people to breed. We don't need impoverished people to breed.

shaarona
11-29-2012, 07:39 PM
Demographics is a large reason why our entitlement programs will fail over time.

This was all predicted in the 1980s in a book called "The Graying of America"..

We'll get thru it.. and make changes.

Mister D
11-29-2012, 07:43 PM
It depends. We need educated people to breed. We don't need impoverished people to breed.

Exactly.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 08:59 PM
This was all predicted in the 1980s in a book called "The Graying of America"..

We'll get thru it.. and make changes.

What changes do you think?

Chris
11-29-2012, 09:13 PM
It depends. We need educated people to breed. We don't need impoverished people to breed.

Don't you mean educable? However you might measure or discern that. Having acquired an education depends to much on environment to breed even if it shows--playing with words here--breeding.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 09:20 PM
No I mean educated.

We don't need to bring in 20,000 impoverished uneducated people and experiment with educating them to see if they will contribute to a growing economy or not.

The US grants education waivers for VISA requirements all the time. And when these well educated students graduate we force them to leave. All the while we let sub-high school types flood across the boarder. Sorta backwards, isn't it?

Chris
11-29-2012, 09:24 PM
No I mean educated.

We don't need to bring in 20,000 impoverished uneducated people and experiment with educating them to see if they will contribute to a growing economy or not.

The US grants education waivers for VISA requirements all the time. And when these well educated students graduate we force them to leave. All the while we let sub-high school types flood across the boarder. Sorta backwards, isn't it?

Oh, OK, I was asking about "We need educated people to breed."

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 10:10 PM
Oh, OK, I was asking about "We need educated people to breed."

Same concept.

Adelaide
11-29-2012, 10:19 PM
Part of the problem is how expensive it is to raise children. I can think of many people I know personally, as well as many cases I have read about in the media, where couples wanted to have very large families but had to abstain because of the costs.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 10:27 PM
Part of the problem is how expensive it is to raise children. I can think of many people I know personally, as well as many cases I have read about in the media, where couples wanted to have very large families but had to abstain because of the costs.

That is why birth rates drop as people urbanize (not slums).

Chris
11-30-2012, 10:18 AM
Same concept.

Not really. If educability was measurable, since it would be genetic, you might could breed to get more educable people. But educated, while measurable, since it's acquired, can't be breed.

LiarSOB
11-30-2012, 10:30 AM
I think that this is all driven by technology. Technology replaces people, even at the most traditional backward village where every newborn is seen as an asset to work the land by hand. There is simply no place in life for people to get born to. (Not in the geographical sense.) For a 100 years now, every child is rather a liability than an asset. Which parent can say that they ever benefited from having a child, unless going by some emotional family propaganda?