E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSU.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children.
But there may be a silver lining: The decline in 2011 was just 1 percent — not as sharp a fall-off as the 2 to 3 percent drop seen in other recent years.
"It may be that the effect of the recession is slowly coming to an end," said Carl Haub, a senior demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization.
Most striking in the new report were steep declines in Hispanic birth rates and a new low in teen births. Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the flagging economy, experts say, and teen birth rates have been falling for 20 years.
Falling births is a relatively new phenomenon in this country. Births had been on the rise since the late 1990s and hit an all-time high of more than 4.3 million in 2007.
But fewer than 4 million births were counted last year — the lowest number since 1998.
Among the people who study this sort of thing, the flagging economy has been seen as the primary explanation. The theory is that many women or couples who are out of work, underemployed or have other money problems feel they can't afford to start a family or add to it.
The economy officially was in a recession from December 2007 until June 2009. But well into 2011, polls show most Americans remained gloomy, citing anemic hiring, a depressed housing market and other factors.
The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a first glimpse at 2011 birth certificate data from state health departments. More analysis comes later but officials don't expect the numbers to change much.
Early data for 2012 is not yet available, and it's too soon to guess whether the birth decline will change, said the CDC's Stephanie Ventura, one of the study's authors.
Highlights of the report include:
- The birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year, dropping by 3 percent from 2010 to 2011. The birth rate for married women, however, rose 1 percent. In most cases, married women are older and more financially secure.
- The birth rate for Hispanic women dropped a whopping 6 percent. But it declined only 2 percent for black women, stayed the same for whites and actually rose a bit for Asian-American and Pacific Islanders.
- Birth rates fell again for women in their early 20s, down 5 percent from 2010 — the lowest mark for women in that age group since 1940, when comprehensive national birth records were first compiled. For women in their late 20s, birth rates fell 1 percent.
- But birth rates held steady for women in their early 30s, and rose for moms ages 35 and older. Experts say that's not surprising: Older women generally have better jobs or financial security, and are more sensitive to the ticking away of their biological clocks.
- Birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low. The number of teen births last year — about 330,000 — was the fewest in one year since 1946. The teen birth rate fell 8 percent, and at 31 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19 was the lowest recorded in more than seven decades.
"The continued decline in the teen birth rates is astounding," said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health.
Did the economy have anything to do with a drop in teen births?
Yes, indirectly, Santelli said. Teenagers watch the struggles and decisions that older sisters and older girlfriends are making, and what they see influences their thinking about sex and birth control, he said.
"Teens tend to emulate young adults," Santelli said. "They are less influenced directly by the economy than by people."
Studies show that since 2007, larger percentages of sexually active teenage girls are using the pill and other effective birth control. Studies also show a small decline in the proportion of girls ages 15 through 17 who say they've had sex, Santelli noted.
The new birth report also noted a fourth straight decline in a calculation of how many children women have over their lifetimes, based on the birth rates of a given year.
A rate of a little more than 2 children per woman means each couple is helping keep the population stable. The U.S. rate last year was slightly below 1.9.
Countries with rates close to 1 — such as Japan and Italy — face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
Officials here aren't as worried.
The U.S. replacement rate is still close to 2. And it has dropped in the past and then bounced back up again, said Ventura, an official at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
"And we haven't seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children," she added.
One more report highlight: The U.S. C-section rate may have finally peaked at just under 33 percent, the same level as last year.
Cesarean deliveries are sometimes medically necessary. But health officials have worried that many C-sections are done out of convenience or unwarranted caution, and in the 1980s set a goal of keeping the national rate at 15 percent.
The C-section rate had been rising steadily since 1996, until it dropped slightly in 2010.
"It does suggest the upward trend may be halted," said Joyce Martin, a CDC epidemiologist who co-authored the new report. But CDC officials want a few more years of data before declaring victory, she added.
More top health news:
Too fat for TV? Anchor fires back at critics
Docs claim first mom-to-daughter uterus transplant
If you have a cold, skip the vitamin D, study says
Leave a Comment:
The last I heard GAYS cannot sire or have kids, have we changed, and when?
gay men can father children, and lesbians can give birth. Its kinda obvious ya know...lol. and this has been true since forever. :)
I am someone who wants to have kids in a few years. I am not waiting because of economic issues. Did they figure that maybe it has to do with personal choice of not wanting to have a child now for personal selfish reasons. I like children. I love being selfish for myself and buying things that I want now. Like that new phone or new computer. I also value sleep very much. I honestly give respect to those of my friends who have had children. It is tough being a teacher, a nurse, a mom, a dad, etc. There are many aspects of this that can be spoken about to both extremes. I wouldn't say either is wrong or right. But before I met my husband. I never thought of having children. I honestly didn't want them. I can now imagine eventually having a child with him someday in the future.
My parents waited with my brother and myself. It is harder the older you get because you aren't as "young" as you used to be. You may not have a lot of energy, but why not bring personal happiness into your life first before bringing another in to the world.
Having children is a choice that everyone makes no matter the reasons they have. It isn't like anyone says I got a refund check from the IRS, lets have a baby. It should be a discussion between two people about what they want in life. Or the drunken night in the back alley.
If a person doesn't want a child, use contreception. If you do, wing it or go to a fertility doctor.
And this is a bad thing? 7 billion people on the earth is way more than enough.
I see this as very good news. It's about time the birth rate started to decline. I don't have kids but for those who do want them it is very sad that now the only people who will be able to afford children are rich people. Children are a luxury few can afford anymore.
It is because of your way of thinking that we are so screwed up. Children are not a luxury, they are the future.
what or who's future? the future of overpopulation, unemployment, global warming, increased taxes for welfare? we don't need and can't afford more people, tough times are natures way of telling you to stop breeding...
I forgot to add, now that GAY marriage is okeyed in the good old USA.
lol, as if marriage has anything to do with having children. How silly. You can have children without being married, you can get married without having children. try to pay attention. Marriage isn't procreation, sexual attraction isn't procreation. These are all different things. :)
I really think it was Bush's fault. I'm not even sure it is a fault, but if it is, it is definitely Bush's fault.
You would think the IRS increase deductions for the raising of children!
they do. you get dependent deductions, earned income credits, and even tax returns greater than what you paid in. those of us without children get to pay more taxes.
According to Mittens just last night, there are deductions that will go away to fund his $5B in tax cuts. Wonder which ones they will be....he sure didn't seem to know.
Alternative explanation? We have an epidemic of infertility problems in this country. GMOs, aspartame, hormone-disrupting chemicals like dioxins, PCBs and BPA all mess with the reproductive system. It's going to get a lot worse.
Easy to agree.There were lots of chemicals around when we were kids[better living through science!].I don't doubt we'll see a lot of cancers as we age more
FINALLY! It only took a bad economy to reduce the number of babies.....folks, the world can't afford to feed more people...
I agree. We need a population control to keep the world going...If people keep breeding out of control there will be no jobs available or food to feed the people...it's just how it is.
ROTFLMAO at how successful the disinformation propaganda has been.
@diatribe
Not sure what you are getting at, but scientists estimate that the Earth's resources can only sustain a maximum population of 10 billion people. Considering that we have passed the 7 billion mark, what yelenad and addy121 stated isn't entirely unreasonable. Even now, there are strains on resources in the U.S., not to mention those in other countries who live off of the bare minimum amount of food to survive. So even though in the U.S. we have an abundance of food (hence why we are becoming the heaviest nation in terms of weight gain), it is not the same for people in Africa where food IS scarce. So why not think before posting.
Back on topic though, I think the birth rate lowering is a good thing, as there are already enough human beings on this planet. Mind you it is most likely due to the current economic standing, but we should start thinking about our future as a race.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
Negative birthrate=fast-track to extinction.
My guess is the ones who cannot afford kids and/or just shouldn't be breeding are still having them. The ones who realize it isn't in their budget are the ones holding off.
And you've just stated the premise of the movie "Idiocracy". Watch it to see (one writer's vision of) where that situation will lead.
The wife and I are definitely not having kids as a result the global economic climate. We both strongly feel that raising children requires one of us to stay home. That is just not possible for us financially speaking and we do not see if becoming possible in the near future if at all with real incomes declining and the cost of necessities rising. Over population and resource scarcity are also a factor looking in the future.
Things have changed since our parents started their families. For example, when my father was my age he worked a blue collar job as welder and made more than I do today adjusted for inflation. In fact his income was nearly the same as our combined household income. My mother stayed home with me. They owned a home, two cars, had money for other needs etc.
For us, the wife and I both have degrees and hold professional "white collar" jobs but do not own a home. We have two cars though. Most of our after tax income goes to basics and exorbitant rent. With no real deductions (kids or mortgage) we also pay out the a$$ in taxes...more than Mitt...last year our effective rate per our accountant was 17%. It is what it is I guess.
Might it also have something to do with the Planned Parenthood initiave, and the information about contraceptives, that the religious right go ballistic about?
do you really think it takes a government funded organization to help people realize they can't afford to raise children when food is scarce? most other animal species are smart enough to figure that out on their own...
Food isn't scarce... but you might be a fool, if you believe that it is.
scarcity is economically defined as unlimited demand but limited supply. your food supply is limited by your ability to provide or pay for it, food isn't free, at least for most.
if a low income family cannot afford the extra food for a child, then food is scarce. if they have to provide food themselves, i.e. work and pay for it, they choose to reduce breeding. if they get food for free, i.e. welfare, they contuinue to breed.
I believe it's the economy causing this.Stress about jobs just kinda shuts that whole thing down.No really,call it what you will but that 47% doesn't make it EASIER to pay taxes and so on.Good news though! I'm sure the birthrate is super awesome for latins
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. All you Catholic couples out there. Stop it right now. You know you're not supposed to prevent conception by any other means than abstinence (and we know all of you aren't doing that). "Go forth and multiply" is a rule, not a guideline. Now get to it.
Obama Administration supports infanticide. He is killing off his own race. And his people are cheering!
My helpful tip for you is to look up the definition of infanticide. Once you do, I think we'll agree that your comment - on it's face - is pretty dumb.
There is a large problem developing and it lies with family and the role the sexes are being directed and educated to take in our society. The result is that the organic growth of our population in the USA is in decline.
Most present day families (however you want to define a family) are just not interested or financially capable of raising more than one or two children. The USA fertility rate has dropped below 2.1 (2.05) --- the rate required for a sustained population. This is a huge problem for developed and developing nations (S. Korea 1.21, Russia 1.34, Germany 1.36, Canada 1.53, UK 1.82,). There is just no way this organic population decline will be reversed in the USA. Our sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters are not going to raise enough children to bring our fertility rate to or above 2.1.
Immigration will fill in our organic population decline but with varying results. The US is a bit better situated than Europe in that the people that want to immigrate to the US are mostly of Christen belief. Europe on the other hand is faced with immigrants that are mostly of Islamic faith and they do not assimilate well into existing Christen populations.
It will be a much different world by 2050 and the family question will become very politically, religiously and sexually charged ----- the value of motherhood will be greatly elevated ----- as it should be.
Someone may have already stated this, but my first thought after reading the headline was "That's because they are all being born across the borders." :)
Dont know why this is looked at as bad news? The world is vastly overpopulated, finally people are getting it they dont need to have 12 kids to feel worth something.
Could this be the right's answer to population control without contraceptives? Mitt and Paul call for renewed recessionary influences to maintain reduced population growth. "Now that's birth control we can get our minds around!" Romunists declare.
This is good news. It makes sense that if you have less money you are less apt to financially provide for a child. I applaud those who voluntarily didn't have a kid due to money issues. That's called being smart.
This is good news. Now if the same can be done for the entire world. Almost all environmental problems can be linked to overpopulation.
People really fear Obama! They know their kids are going to have a rough time in a country that could be in a civil war. When the economy collapses, a war will erupt between the intelligent and the Liberals. It probably will be a quick war, but it may take time to eliminate the domestic terrorists who caused the catastrophe.
lol, not more of this "coming american Civil War" nonsense.