Last night Ann Althouse linked to a Washington Post piece on the birth rate, which profiled one couple whose dreams of parenthood were dashed by the combination of uncertain finances and infertility — they married at the ages of 27 and 29, in 2008, both lost and regained jobs but worry about their financial future, need to cough up $15,000, minimum, for IVF after less expensive treatments failed, and push this off, wanting a bit more financial stability first, but fear waiting too long and having existing infertility issues compounded by aging.
In the meantime, they spend a lot of time with their 4 1/2 year old niece.
This is, for the individuals involved, a sad story. Is this representative of the reason for the steep decline in the birth rate?
The Washington Post reports:
Last year, the nation’s fertility rate hit a historic low — 62.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of that decline comes from a long-term shift toward smaller families. But finances also play a pivotal role. A Gallup poll last year found the main reason Americans were delaying parenthood was worries about money and the economy — even as the stock market rallied and broad indicators pointed to a brighter future, highlighting a disconnect felt by many Americans. A report by Pew Research Center showed birth rates in many states rise and fall in tune with personal income.
Births have slowed so sharply that researchers note that future economic growth could be stunted by a smaller labor pool. Immigration is often seen as a fix. But the downturn crimped supply lines for both babies and new foreign faces. The change was so dramatic that the Census Bureau in 2012 was forced to revise the 2050 U.S. population projection it made just four years earlier, dropping it by 9 percent, to just under 400 million.
A month ago, I had written about a similar article, and expressed doubt that it really was as simple as couples deferring children, but ultimately, except for those who find that due to age-related infertility they can no longer have children, catching up and having their scheduled two children.
And here’s an article which, at first glance, seems unrelated: “Architect’s Montrose Beach plan would sacrifice parking.” An architect who lives near Chicago’s Montrose Beach has submitted for the city’s consideration a proposal to remove the parking lots from the beach, and replace them with natural areas and bike parking. He was motivated by a large illegal party there earlier in the summer, which was blamed on the availability of parking.
Now, anyone with a smidge of common sense knows that a single person or childless couple can easily bike or take mass transit to the beach, with a few supplies in a backpack and a plan to buy concessions at the beach. A family? Not so much — when you consider the beach umbrella, the towels, the snacks and drinks that there’s no way you’re going to pay concession-stand prices for, for the whole family, the sand toys for the kids, etc.
There’s a massive cultural shift going on, in the name of “sustainability,” to make life just that much more difficult for families. (Though, in this case, I doubt that this unsolicited plan will go anywhere.) And a further shift towards “childfree” individuals proudly announcing their intention to not be encumbered by the difficulties children bring.
In light of this, it may be that the drop in birth rates was initially caused by the recession, but there’s every reason to think it’s a longer-term change. (Unless, of course, the determined frequent childbearing by those who have large families for religious reasons, and pass on those values to their children, ultimately pushes the birth rate back up.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In