Time For Another Boost

[Badger**]

17 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Birth rates are up in the US. 

Go back and watch it again, I took it as more birth defects for the most part. 

[akvanden]

2 minutes ago, Badger** said:

Go back and watch it again, I took it as more birth defects for the most part. 

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.

[Badger**]

3 minutes ago, akvanden said:

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.

FYI they have been on a down word trend for years 

POPULATION GROWTH

POPULATION GROWTH

---

SHARE

The Mystery of the Declining U.S. Birth Rate

By Melissa Kearney, Phillip Levine and Luke Pardue·February 15, 2022
University of Maryland and Wellesley College

The Issue:

Up until the Great Recession, the number of babies born per woman in the United States had been quite stable for the previous three decades. The birth rate fluctuated within a relatively narrow range, often along with economic conditions, with fewer babies born during lean times and with births recovering when economic growth was stronger. However, the U.S. birth rate has fallen precipitously since the 2007 Great Recession, with no signs of reversing. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. It is reflective of lower childbearing rates across successive cohorts.

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

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.

[akvanden]

8 minutes ago, Badger** said:

FYI they have been on a down word trend for years 

POPULATION GROWTH

POPULATION GROWTH

---

SHARE

The Mystery of the Declining U.S. Birth Rate

By Melissa Kearney, Phillip Levine and Luke Pardue·February 15, 2022
University of Maryland and Wellesley College

The Issue:

Up until the Great Recession, the number of babies born per woman in the United States had been quite stable for the previous three decades. The birth rate fluctuated within a relatively narrow range, often along with economic conditions, with fewer babies born during lean times and with births recovering when economic growth was stronger. However, the U.S. birth rate has fallen precipitously since the 2007 Great Recession, with no signs of reversing. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. It is reflective of lower childbearing rates across successive cohorts.

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

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.

[Deephaven]

Thanks for again proving AC is wrong Badger!  Nice work

 

[ArcticCrusher]

46 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Thanks for again proving AC is wrong Badger!  Nice work

 

Thanks for proving again education level does not equal intelligence.

Dumb retard.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Deephaven said:

Thanks for again proving AC is wrong Badger!  Nice work

 

  Not the kind of guy you want on your side that's for sure  That's fucking funny.

[ArcticCrusher]

The Florida Surgeon General.  Telling it like it is.

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

2 hours ago, HSR said:

  Not the kind of guy you want on your side that's for sure  That's fucking funny.

Get another booster and follow the science.  

[Jimmy Snacks]

9 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Get another booster and follow the science.  

You keep saying that as if people here are getting boosters.

[ArcticCrusher]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

You keep saying that as if people here are getting boosters.

 

There still defending it as the right thing to do, yet won't get more. 

That's a dumb hypocrite.

At least you wised up on this topic.

[Jimmy Snacks]

4 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

There still defending it as the right thing to do, yet won't get more. 

That's a dumb hypocrite.

At least you wised up on this topic.

They’re and who is defending it?

[ArcticCrusher]

Adverse events in 1 out of 200 toddlers from Moderna.  How the fuck is this garbage not pulled off the market.

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

23 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

They’re and who is defending it?

The ones who can't see through the scam.

It's pretty obvious the cdc, fda, who etc all need a good cull.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

You keep saying that as if people here are getting boosters.

No shit 

25 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

They’re and who is defending it?

Just take the position you are assigned and defend it, or don't. Results will be the same.

[Crnr2Crnr]

[ArcticCrusher]

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

Even Ben gets it now.

 

 

[akvanden]

4 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

 

I would like to know what was going on in this picture before the words were added.

[ArcticCrusher]

What could it be from.  Sheep have no clue.

 

 

 

[ford_428cj]

23 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

The Florida Surgeon General.  Telling it like it is.

 

 

[ford_428cj]

23 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

They’re and who is defending it?

Your better half doing any better?

[irv]

These are clips from an essay by author Naomi Wolf

 

We all witnessed it ... 'vaccine passports', etc.

Are you vaccinated?

Are you? Vaccinated?

I get to ask. You must answer.

Are you vaccinated?

Surely this ambush was being inflicted on trauma survivors everywhere.

 

The viral clip of the Pfizer marketing rep, admitting to the European Parliament that the mRNA vaccines never stopped transmission, should make every single one of these moments, a source of deep embarrassment and self-criticism for all those — all of them - who inflicted these violations of privacy on others, or who excluded in any way, on the basis of nonsense, their neighbors and fellow countrymen and women.

But meanwhile, I forgive them. I have to. Because otherwise the rage and misery would exhaust me to death.

But I cannot forget.

Are we supposed to just pick up again, as if emotional limbs were not crushed, as if emotional hearts and guts were not pierced, as if with sharp objects? And that, again and again?

As if there has been no savagery, no massacre here?

All those people — now that athletes are dropping dead, now that their own loved ones are sick and hospitalized, now that stopping the “transmission” is known to be a lie and the vaccines’ “efficacy” itself is known to be a lie - are they — sorry? Are they reflecting upon themselves, on their actions, on their consciences; n their immortal souls; on what they have done to others; on their part in this shameful melodrama in world history - a time that now can never be erased?

I don’t hear it. I don’t hear any apologies.

Not one conversation. Not one sign. Not one article. “My friend, I was a beast. How can you forgive me? I behaved so badly.” Have you heard that? No, nothing.

Instead people are reacting to the fact of their awfulness, of their profound wrongness, of their foolishness, of their ignorance and credulity, like sneaky, guilty dogs.

I can and must forgive most people because they fell for the media narrative. But it is harder to forgive - others.

It is hard to forgive the high school that forced a teenager to be mRNA vaccinated against her wishes, in order to play basketball, and caused her death.

It is hard to forgive the doctors, the hospitals, the pediatricians, who knew and knew and knew. And bowed their head, and plunged the needles into the arms of innocents, and committed evil. The doctors who today are faced with vaccine injured people and who say, “We are baffled. We have no idea” what caused this.

When did Western doctors, before 2020, ever have no idea?

Have you, parents of college age children, received a letter of apology? “We are so sorry we forced your son/your daughter to submit to an experimental injection that can harm him or her, may make your daughter crippled with bleeding every single month of her childbearing years, and may lead your son to drop dead on the track field. And one that, it turns out, has nothing to do with transmission. We can’t apologize enough. (But the money — it was just such a lot.) Really sorry. Won’t do it again, rest assured”

 

Will you apologize, if you did wrong?

Will you forgive, if you were wronged?

These are clips from an essay by author Naomi

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 hour ago, ford_428cj said:

Your better half doing any better?

Well she had 34 Botox Shots into her neck,head and shoulders on Wednesday and the doctor said it will take 2 weeks to see if they are effective at alleviating her symptoms…fingers crossed. Thank you for asking.👊🏻👌🏻

Edited October 30, 2022 by Jimmy Snacks

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, irv said:

These are clips from an essay by author Naomi Wolf

 

We all witnessed it ... 'vaccine passports', etc.

Are you vaccinated?

Are you? Vaccinated?

I get to ask. You must answer.

Are you vaccinated?

Surely this ambush was being inflicted on trauma survivors everywhere.

 

The viral clip of the Pfizer marketing rep, admitting to the European Parliament that the mRNA vaccines never stopped transmission, should make every single one of these moments, a source of deep embarrassment and self-criticism for all those — all of them - who inflicted these violations of privacy on others, or who excluded in any way, on the basis of nonsense, their neighbors and fellow countrymen and women.

But meanwhile, I forgive them. I have to. Because otherwise the rage and misery would exhaust me to death.

But I cannot forget.

Are we supposed to just pick up again, as if emotional limbs were not crushed, as if emotional hearts and guts were not pierced, as if with sharp objects? And that, again and again?

As if there has been no savagery, no massacre here?

All those people — now that athletes are dropping dead, now that their own loved ones are sick and hospitalized, now that stopping the “transmission” is known to be a lie and the vaccines’ “efficacy” itself is known to be a lie - are they — sorry? Are they reflecting upon themselves, on their actions, on their consciences; n their immortal souls; on what they have done to others; on their part in this shameful melodrama in world history - a time that now can never be erased?

I don’t hear it. I don’t hear any apologies.

Not one conversation. Not one sign. Not one article. “My friend, I was a beast. How can you forgive me? I behaved so badly.” Have you heard that? No, nothing.

Instead people are reacting to the fact of their awfulness, of their profound wrongness, of their foolishness, of their ignorance and credulity, like sneaky, guilty dogs.

I can and must forgive most people because they fell for the media narrative. But it is harder to forgive - others.

It is hard to forgive the high school that forced a teenager to be mRNA vaccinated against her wishes, in order to play basketball, and caused her death.

It is hard to forgive the doctors, the hospitals, the pediatricians, who knew and knew and knew. And bowed their head, and plunged the needles into the arms of innocents, and committed evil. The doctors who today are faced with vaccine injured people and who say, “We are baffled. We have no idea” what caused this.

When did Western doctors, before 2020, ever have no idea?

Have you, parents of college age children, received a letter of apology? “We are so sorry we forced your son/your daughter to submit to an experimental injection that can harm him or her, may make your daughter crippled with bleeding every single month of her childbearing years, and may lead your son to drop dead on the track field. And one that, it turns out, has nothing to do with transmission. We can’t apologize enough. (But the money — it was just such a lot.) Really sorry. Won’t do it again, rest assured”

 

Will you apologize, if you did wrong?

Will you forgive, if you were wronged?

These are clips from an essay by author Naomi

Naomi is a strong amazing woman, she could have stayed silent, but she could not.

She could teach a lot of morons here if they had any courage.