Die USA sehen 5,7 Millionen mehr kinderlose Frauen als erwartet und befeuern eine „demografische Klippe“ | Diese tiefgreifende Veränderung der Geburtsmuster hat in den letzten 17 Jahren zu einem kumulativen Gesamtbetrag von 11,8 Millionen Geburten beigetragen, als wenn frühere Fruchtbarkeitsraten beibehalten worden wären.
U.S. sees 5.7 million more childless women than expected, fueling a “demographic cliff”
25 Kommentare
From the article: New [research](https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/factors-contributing-demographic-cliff-more-us-women-childbearing-age-fewer-have-given-birth) from the University of New Hampshire paints a stark picture of shifting family structures in the United States, revealing that millions more women are without children than historical trends would predict. The analysis shows that in 2024, there were 5.7 million more childless women in their primary childbearing years than anticipated, a gap that has widened substantially in recent years. This profound change in childbearing patterns has contributed to a cumulative total of 11.8 million fewer births over the past 17 years than would have occurred if earlier fertility rates had been maintained.
The rationale for this investigation stems from a long-standing question among demographers and sociologists about the lasting effects of major societal disruptions on personal life decisions, specifically the choice to have children. The period beginning with the Great Recession in 2007 initiated an era of significant economic, social, and later, public health turbulence, which was intensified by the global pandemic.
Initially, many experts believed that the decline in births seen during these periods was a temporary delay, and that many people who postponed starting a family would eventually “catch up” once conditions improved. However, nearly two decades after this period of instability began, fertility rates in the United States have not rebounded to previous levels. Instead, they remain near historic lows, prompting researchers to explore whether these changes represent a temporary pause or a more permanent societal realignment regarding family and childbearing.
This study sought to quantify the extent of this shift and understand the complex web of factors contributing to it. Beyond major economic and health crises, the researchers acknowledge a landscape of evolving social norms and practical realities. These include expanded educational and career opportunities for women, which can alter timelines for starting a family.
At the same time, practical considerations like the soaring costs of housing, the substantial expense of raising children, and limited access to affordable child care and paid family leave present significant hurdles. Changing patterns in relationships, such as declining marriage rates and shifts in cohabitation, also play a part. While fertility rates have always been lower among unmarried women, the research aimed to see if childlessness was also increasing among married women, suggesting a broader cultural change in attitudes about having children.
But who will work the low paying jobs that keep you from being able to afford having children in the first place, which is really a vicious cycle. You want the peasants having children to keep the infinite growth economy rolling, but they are just peasants to you after all, so the hell with them right?! But who will work the low paying jobs that………………
Its like an ouroboros of oligarch greed and stupidity.
I think the fundamental shifts in societal expectations over the last generation or so are more to blame than are any temporary disruptions.
Functionally, there is now no substantial pressure on the average American woman to have children when compared to the absolutely unyielding societal expectations of just a generation ago.
My parent’s generation having children was *what you did*, and everyone understood that, with every relative/friend/boss/etc reinforcing it every step along the way.
Today, it’s a question that is asked, something that would have been inconceivable not far back.
I always found analyses like these interesting because they seemingly say next to nothing and are an exercise in either some form of statistical modeling or new technique. Yes it should be studied but I wonder what is the effect of these purely scientific posts that are mostly devoid of real commentary. America like many countries is going through a near demographic collapse, at some point the conversation has to shift from observations and speculation on the why instead pushing effort forward to suggesting meaningful policy positions that reverse the trend or soften the landing.
Decrease income inequality especially for starting jobs.
2 people making a combined 150k a year in much of the US feel comfortable
2 people making 75k combined? Not so much.
Make a society worth bringing a child into, and babies will follow. It’s not complicated.
The US is a hostile place to affordably raise children. If it had a similar social safety net as other wealthy countries, this would change.
Plus many potential American parents don’t see their gov’t trying to make the future a better place for potential children (esp RE climate change, growing fascism, extreme inequality, skyrocketing health care costs for profit) so there’s even less incentive to bring children into a world that will be even harder for them than it is now for their parents.
When I had a kid daycare was $1300/months and my insurance went up $800/mo. That was more than my mortgage. I could have leased a Lamborghini with that money, more or less. It’s worse now, and my house went from 240k to 450k in that period.
If you want more kids maybe make an economy that isn’t basically demanding you not have any.
It’s happening all over the world — women empowered to make a choice, and facing economic uncertainty, are choosing not to have kids.
This is why the right is demonizing birth control.
What?! Women don’t want to be just baby-making machines?? Say it isn’t sooooooo.
I’m getting close to my now-or-never age for babies, and I’ve always wanted to be a mom.
Stagnant wages, increased childcare, no parental leave, political tensions, gun violence, high unemployment, etc… these things are not very encouraging.
i mean whatever who cares so theres gonna be less people so what
The people who want the birthrate to increase are morally opposed to spending any money to improve the country.
Responsible people pay for the things they want, so they may need to make some tough choices going forward. Or they’ll go full Handmaid’s Tale.
(can we stop talking about it? Trump already quipped recently that „IUDs and birth control abortions“. American women are so close to be turned into broodmares; the rule of the law is crumbling down around you guys)
It’s both the obvious childcare costs that have gone way up, and the non-obvious ones too.
Obviously, housing is crazy expensive. So is childcare, food, utilities, clothes, etc.
But also… expectations that you spend a lot of money are up too! Years ago kids went to school and then they had maybe some free sports in the local little league or whatever. Now? It’s expected you put them in gymnastics lessons, violin lessons, pay for after school activities, buy things for clubs and teams, put them in travel teams, sign them up for ballet, and on and on. Obviously not every kid does every one of those, but… most kids do a lot.
And the TIME is a lot more too. Like it or not, the culture has changed. The images of kids just roaming the neighborhood from movies about the 80’s and before aren’t made up. Parents would just say „go outside, see you at dinner“ and that was all they had to do. Now? It’s shuttling and supervising kids 24/7. They can’t just „go out to play“ it has to be playdates, it has to be paid groups, lessons, teams, and on and on.
It’s SO MUCH MORE WORK now than it used to be, in addition to the higher costs.
We’ve done such a good job of making people into consumers that it’s cutting into our birth rates because people freak out at how they won’t be able to consume as much if they have to feed and clothe a child.
Somebody please explain to me why population growth is good.
Or, conversely, why a slowdown is bad.
Maybe giving all of the money to the top 1% was a mistake?
Because we, and the Earth’s resources, would be so much better off if we had an extra 11.8 million people? The rich hoarding the resources would be more likely to share with that extra 11.8 million? That extra 11.8 million wouldn’t need homes or dependable, financially stable parents or good healthcare or education as much any of the other eight billion people in the world?
And of course they’d all be white, Christian, and not a single disability among them instead of more brown people that certain other Americans would be afraid of and feel the need to deport. /s
Universal healthcare
Universal child care
Provide free breakfast and lunch for all public school children
Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage
Make the rich fucks pay taxes on everything they own. We don’t need billionaires
Then we’ll talk about having kids again
Isn’t that supposed to be a **good** thing? In the face of the impending Climate Apocalypse, isn’t it a good thing that we aren’t bringing even more people into this overstressed planet?
Or are we finally ready to have the discussion about how pensions are basically glorified Ponzi schemes?
[Antinatalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been) would title this, „5.7 U.S. million women help prevent the suffering of 12 million people!“
There are studies that account for brazils fertility rate plummeting from i think it was 1960 to 1990, due to soap operas on tv and entertainment that promoted and glamourised small families.
I wonder how much of the worlds birth rate issues are atleast partly because of the same thing happening in the entertainment industries of most of the world for the last 20ish years.
What would also happen if governments funded shows, books ect that promote bigger families and were targeted at younger people
There are over 8 billion people on this planet.
Millions would literally die for a chance at a better life.
Climate change will cause massive population movement, death, and catastrophe.
The issue isn’t a low birth rate.
The issues are concentration of wealth and racism.
To expect anything to continue on a single never changing trajectory is absurd. But that seems to be the premise of most of the ‘pro-natalists’.
Maybe make life less shit, and people will want to have kids more.