Not Enough Babies!

Oh, no!  We're running out of people!

The Washington Post, along with several other news outlets reported a few weeks ago that the birth rate in the US is down. It fell 1% from 2015 to 2016. Why is this news? Is it a problem?

 Apparently it is. The article says we are “in the midst of what some worry is a baby crisis.” The birth rate has been declining for years and is now at a historic low according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some predict it will result in “economic and cultural turmoil” and that “there's a danger that we wouldn't be able to replace the aging workforce and have enough tax revenue to keep the economy stable.”

The workforce issue could be a worry if the birthrate falls and stays below the replacement level, unless robots fill some of those jobs that the aging workforce leaves. Of course, the idea of robots taking jobs is another of the worries that the news media presents as a potential crisis! But maybe it would be a good thing.

With robots doing the work, there would not be enough human workers to pay into the Social Security fund that the retirees draw from. But that is already a problem, a flaw in the design of the program rather than a crisis brought about by not enough babies. It is compounded by the inadequate savings of many older Americans, but fewer children would cost parents less and with a little more discipline the may be averted.

Then there is the fact that as economies strengthen and the standard of living improves it is natural for parents to have fewer children. Populations migrate from farm to city, and the childhood survival rate improves as healthcare improves. It happens in every country, not just here. According to the article countries that already have low birthrates are fighting this trend by putting “pro-family policies into place to try to encourage couples to have babies.” 

That smacks of yet another government attempt to sway individual decisions – there is already a tax break for having children and assistance payments are calculated on a per child basis.  Now should programs like mandatory parent leave be added? Do we have people in Washington (or anywhere) capable of fine-tuning the birthrate by turning on and off programs and regulations? Even if we did, is it politically realistic to expect that such benefits could easily be turned off? 

At the same time we have a distress call every summer that children are out of school and will be going hungry because they no longer get free breakfasts and lunches. Charitable organizations are putting together programs to address this problem.  Would more babies compound this problem?  

Finally, since everyone is worried about climate change, isn’t having fewer people burning fossil fuel, otherwise adding to greenhouse gases by eating meat and generally using up the earth’s resources a good thing? Technically, your children and grandchildren are part of your carbon footprint. Maybe this is another case of wanting to clean up the planet by letting someone else do it.

The news media are always eager to pick up on the worries of certain experts even if they seem to conflict with the worries of other experts.  This sounds like another crisis where the experts have already made up their minds about the problem and course of action without looking at the many trade offs and contradictions – puzzling.

No New Baby Boom

It looks like an expected baby boom is failing to materialize.  Birth rates in the U.S. fell for the fourth year in a row, with fewer than 4 million births, the lowest since 1998.  Having children is certainly behavior, and from that standpoint, this seems like good news.

Some of the points made in this news article include:  “birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low,” and “the birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year.”  In most cases, these mothers would be the hardest pressed to find the financial and time resources to care for their children, especially in a down economy.

That economy is the main reason given for the overall decline “with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children.”  “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.”

In this example, people get it.  Behavior has consequences.  Good critical thinking about the impact of starting or adding to a family leads to the decision to wait until they are financially, and perhaps emotionally, in a better position.  There may even be hints of stronger discipline and responsibility.  The argument that you can’t support a family of four on the minimum wage never made sense.  How could anyone with only a minimum-wage job or a minimum-wage skill set, assume he has the right to head up a family of four?  That always struck me as faulty reasoning.  Based on this report, it’s nice to see that kind of cart-before-the-horse thinking is beginning to subside.

A second article presents the same facts with a slightly different interpretation.  The writer implies that this might be a reaction to the economy, but could also be the beginning of a new trend, mothers delaying the birth of their first child until later in life.  It will take more time and data to establish whether this is true or not.

No matter the cause, this behavior increases the likelihood of parents being financially prepared before taking on the responsibility of raising children.  This is a very good sign in a society deep in debt but committed to supporting those who still find themselves unprepared.