akvanden

The Facts: The Great Recession disrupted a stable period in birth rates. For the almost three decades between 1980 and 2007, the U.S. birth rate hovered between 65 and 70 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. The birth rate followed a predictable pro-cyclical pattern, falling during economic downturns and recovering when the economy improves. But something changed around the time of the Great Recession; the birth rate fell precipitously, and it did not recover when the economy improved. Rather, the U.S. birth rate has continued a steady descent. As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007. The decline in births cannot readily be explained by changing population composition. The sustained decline in U.S. births since 2007 has been driven by declining births among many demographic groups, rather than by changes in population composition. Births have fallen among women in their early 20s, late 20s, and teens (in fact, the teen birth rate in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the mid-1990s). Births have fallen among white women, Black women, and Hispanic women, with the largest declines among Hispanic women. Births have also fallen among women with and without college degrees and among both married and unmarried women. The population of U.S. women of childbearing age has actually shifted toward groups that tend to have higher birth rates, not lower birth rates, with the exception of a rising share of women of childbearing age being unmarried. No obvious policy or economic factor can explain much of the decline. The onset of the Great Recession clearly played a role in the early stages of the decline. Beyond that, it is difficult to identify any policy or economic factor that can statistically account for the continued decline. Casual observers have suggested that a variety of potential factors are responsible for the decline, including greater take-up of highly effective contraception, the high cost of raising children, improved occupational opportunities for women, and the high level of student debt carried by young adults. Our research finds little empirical support for these possible explanations. Moreover, none of the measures that have been shown in previous research to have a causal effect on annual birth rates – such as labor market conditions (beyond the Great Recession), certain social policy indicators (such as child support enforcement) or reproductive health policy measures (such as abortion clinic closures) – have changed in ways that can account for the drop in the national birth rate since 2007. Successive generations of women are having fewer children at every age. While the largest decreases in birth rates have occurred amongst women under 30, it is possible that this reflects more than a general tendency among women to delay childbirth and that there are generational changes taking place. Cohorts of U.S. women born after the mid-1980s are having fewer births at all ages. The above figure shows that subsequent cohorts of women who were born in the windows 1968 to 1972, 1973 to 1977, and 1978 to1982 all had similar childbearing age profiles throughout their lives. Then, the cohort of women born between 1983 and 1987 had fewer children throughout their 20s and their 30s. The next two five-year birth cohorts of women (born between 1988 and 1997) have fewer children than earlier cohorts. In other words, later cohorts of mothers have fewer children at every age than women in earlier cohorts. The likelihood of births “catching up” at older ages across these cohorts seems limited. Shifting priorities could be the primary driver for the decline in the birth rate since 2007. There is survey and anecdotal data suggesting that perhaps more recent cohorts of young adults have different preferences for having children, aspirations for life, and views about parenting norms that are driving the decline in the U.S. birth rates. These shifts could reflect preferences and norms that changed primarily in earlier decades, long before 2007 – such as more intensive parenting practices and expanded economic opportunities for women – in ways that profoundly shaped the world views of today’s younger adults. A sustained decline in the birth rate would have important social and economic consequences. A temporary decline in annual birth rates does not necessarily portend social and economic challenges. However, the decline in annual birth rates in the U.S. has been ongoing for many years and as shown above, corresponds to a decline in the number of children a woman has over her lifetime, on average. This trend predicts a persistently lower fertility rate in the U.S., which, absent increased immigration, would lead to a smaller workforce and an older population. In general, a smaller workforce and an aging population would have negative implications for economic productivity and per capita income growth. In addition, the combination of a smaller workforce and an aging population puts fiscal pressure on social insurance programs, like Social Security, that rely on tax payments from current workers to pay the benefits of current retirees. Some observers point to the idea that, all else equal, a shrinking population will reduce humans’ carbon footprint, and hence have positive environmental effects. We are not aware of any evidence, though, that population declines corresponding to the size of the drop in U.S. fertility would have a meaningful effect on climate outcomes. The onset of the COVID pandemic added another layer of uncertainty to childbearing trends in the United States. Births conceived between the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 and the end of that year fell by around 60,000. This is a smaller drop than many had expected, given the dramatic rise in unemployment and in economic and public health uncertainty at the outset of the pandemic. It is possible that government assistance blunted the economic impact of the pandemic on many families. What this Means: Although the 2007 recession seems to have played a role in decreasing the number of children born per woman in the United States, the lack of any rebound in births and, in fact, their continued decline following the end of the recession suggests a role for factors beyond the Great Recession. A decline in annual birth rates does not necessarily imply a long-term reduction in childbearing. If the recent decline in annual birth rates simply reflects women pushing off having children from their 20s to their 30s, then annual birth rates will eventually rebound and the total number of children the average U.S. woman has over her lifetime will not change. But the decline in annual birth rates since 2007 is consistent with more recent cohorts of women having fewer births. Those cohorts have not completed their childbearing years yet, but the number of births they would have to have at older ages to catch up to the lifetime childbearing rates of earlier cohorts is so large that it seems unlikely they will do so. If the decline in births reflects a (semi)permanent shift in priorities, as opposed to transitory economic or policy factors, the U.S. is likely to see a sustained decline in birth rates and a general decline in fertility for the foreseeable future. This has consequences for projected U.S. economic growth and productivity, as well as the fiscal sustainability of current social insurance programs. Correct, up until about 2020. Rates have actually increased starting in 2021 and into 2022… which is a real bummer for the story they’re trying to sell.

Oh I watched it, and have a hard time believing someone when they can’t even get simple birth rates correct. Plus, birth defects complicate pregnancies and outcomes, not increase them.

It’s all the democrats fault, they own this.

Birth rates are up in the US.

Will it explain how 95% of all deaths are from the vaccine now, or were you planning to explain that? I’m still really interested in knowing.

This attack was part of the plan, which means we’re just one step closer to the Great Reset.

Looking just fine.

No it’s not. Prove me wrong. You still can’t explain why excess deaths aren’t up 1,800% if 95% of deaths are vaccine related. Severe cases, deaths, etc, are way down with current variants. Why is that so hard for you to follow?

Let’s see this documentation. Shouldn’t that be A LOT higher if they’re causing 95% of all deaths?

I bought exactly this in a ‘19 this past spring. Looking forward to it.

Would be helpful to have Miley’s speech so we could understand context/when it was said. Details matter.

Your guy’s internet search not working? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-gas-prices-over-5-dollars/

I still interested in knowing more about the 1,800% increase in excess mortality rates that’s now driving 95% of the deaths. And more anecdotal evidence. Because those tell the whole story, while relying heavily on assumptions…

Don't ask question if that's all you can reply with. Will save us both time.

I’ve never said anything about vaccinating kids. My opinion is irrelevant. But add IFR plus hospitalizations plus severe cases and you might get a better understanding of why some parents may choose to do so.

A variation of sanctions that didn’t do much to deter them from doing it again. Crimea you have limited options, militarily. Unless you’re sending planes, Ukraine would have a hard time marching across the few bridges connecting them.

Can you reason? If they used to have 5 deaths per month from natural causes, they’re saying they now have 100 deaths per month, with 95 of those being caused by vaccine?

Unfortunately, we’re stuck with whatever you post. You posted 198 incidents of myocarditis per million, not deaths. Don’t confuse yourself.

Then do yourself a favor and just stick with the Thailand numbers rather than 0.000198. You seem to be getting angry at your numbers.

Divide 198 into one million and let us know what it is.

A miscalculated perception of weakness this go-around. Yet some would still prefer the weakness route. Again, all bark and bluster, no bite.

Putin would like any US president who’d be weak militarily so he could carry on his annexations with minimal impacts to Russia in forms of retaliation, sanctions, etc.

Perfect, you’re doing good.