We've talked about it here for a while, but it's becoming more quantifiable.

Global birthrates are tanking. What's next?

Maybe it's a blindspot, but I didn't realize U.S. birthrates have more-or-less declined for the past 50+ years. I thought it was much more recent than that.

Also, look at Mexico. Just an absolute flooring over the past 40 years.

Quote:

---

"The demographic winter is coming," said Jess Fernndez-Villaverde, an economist specializing in demographics at the University of Pennsylvania.

---

Quote:

---

In high-income nations, fertility fell below replacement in the 1970s, and took a leg down during the pandemic. It's dropping in developing countries, too. India surpassed China as the most populous country last year, yet its fertility is now below replacement.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump, this year's presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called collapsing fertility a bigger threat to Western civilization than Russia.

---

Quote:

---

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington now thinks it will peak around 9.5 billion in 2061 then start declining.

---

Quote:

---

In the U.S., a short-lived pandemic baby boomlet has reversed. The total fertility rate fell to 1.62 last year, according to provisional government figures, the lowest on record.

---

Quote:

---

Some demographers see this as part of a "second demographic transition," a societywide reorientation toward individualism that puts less emphasis on marriage and parenthood, and makes fewer or no children more acceptable.

---

Quote:

---

Sub-Saharan Africa once appeared resistant to the global slide in fertility, but that too is changing. The share of all women of reproductive age using modern contraception grew from 17% in 2012 to 23% in 2022

---

Quote:

---

Last year, Trump said he backed paying out "baby bonuses" to prop up U.S. births, and GOP Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake recently endorsed the idea.

---

Paywall

rgag12 said:

---

Is this a bad thing? My only regret is that I won't be around to finally be able to see the day where the traffic doesn't seemingly double on the roads every 5 years

---

A big reason for traffic increase is the Amazon model. Trucks carry 50% air delivering single items to households. Pre-Amazon, big rigs were packed to the gills with product - not air - that were delivered to big box stores. More last mile vehicles on the road now too.

Ag06Law said:

---

Is Mexico's "absolute flooring" birth rate supposed to be a bad thing?

---

Probably. Falling birth rates mean inverted tax revenue relative to services recipients. Mexico would become even worse off than they are now. And what would their people do? Where would they go? (You only get one guess)

Ag06Law said:

---

Is Mexico's "absolute flooring" birth rate supposed to be a bad thing?

---

For the globalists yeah. There won't be any young people to support these nations locally, much less to import in 15 years.

With that said, no one is prepared for how catastrophic this will be to global supply chains.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

No, none of this is true because if it was then it would not be occurring in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH.

This appears to be something more fundamental and central to the human experience that is likely biological in nature and an aspect of our genetics. This is a species wide negative environmental reproductive pressure. It's far bigger than policy of any kind, which is why the answer always goes back to urbanism and modern technology.

The only groups that have resistance to this are the deeply religious social conservatives from the Abrahamic religions. This does not apply to Hindus or Buddhists.

---

It's not happening in every single nation on earth. It's not happening in Africa or the Middle East, for example (places where women typically work in the home).

bmks270 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

Did government also cause the collapse of mouse utopia?

I think this is biological response to high population density.

---

I encourage everyone to read about mouse utopia. I found a pretty good summary of it here

https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia#:~:text=Gradually%2C%20the%20mice%20that%20refused,of%20the%20enclosure's%203%2C000%20capacity.

This is why the rise of AI is perilous, but in my mind the coming of the industrial age put us irrevocably on this path. If we try to solve every inconvenience in our lives, we will only be left with a society of "beautiful ones".

The government is not the boogeyman here, although they can hasten or delay the ultimate result, it's our animal instincts.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

No, none of this is true because if it was then it would not be occurring in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH.

This appears to be something more fundamental and central to the human experience that is likely biological in nature and an aspect of our genetics. This is a species wide negative environmental reproductive pressure. It's far bigger than policy of any kind, which is why the answer always goes back to urbanism and modern technology.

The only groups that have resistance to this are the deeply religious social conservatives from the Abrahamic religions. This does not apply to Hindus or Buddhists.

---

It's not happening in every single nation on earth. It's not happening in Africa or the Middle East, for example (places where women typically work in the home).

---

It's a function of wealth and education. The wealthier and more educated a population becomes, the fewer children they have. Thus, it makes sense it's not happening in Africa or the ME.

What is the answer? As bad as it sounds, how do we change the trend with large scale war. Wars reset what is actually important, causes population spikes post war that leads to healthy societal demographics, and really emphasize a country first mentality where the population feels like they're doing their part.

BCG Disciple said:

---

What is the answer? As bad as it sounds, how do we change the trend with large scale war. Wars reset what is actually important, causes population spikes post war that leads to healthy societal demographics, and really emphasize a country first mentality where the population feels like they're doing their part.

---

Maybe for the soldiers. But that's an ever shrinking portion of the population.

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

No, none of this is true because if it was then it would not be occurring in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH.

This appears to be something more fundamental and central to the human experience that is likely biological in nature and an aspect of our genetics. This is a species wide negative environmental reproductive pressure. It's far bigger than policy of any kind, which is why the answer always goes back to urbanism and modern technology.

The only groups that have resistance to this are the deeply religious social conservatives from the Abrahamic religions. This does not apply to Hindus or Buddhists.

---

It's not happening in every single nation on earth. It's not happening in Africa or the Middle East, for example (places where women typically work in the home).

---

It's a function of wealth and education. The wealthier and more educated a population becomes, the fewer children they have. Thus, it makes sense it's not happening in Africa or the ME.

---

We are less educated as a populate than we were 50 years ago. Degrees like women studies are negative on the education scale.


And this is correlation not a causation anyway. Just because easy government loans sends more people to college nowadays does not mean that is why they are having less kids. A woman who goes to college is less likely to stay home to watch kids. They have incentive to do SOMETHING with their degree. The lack of childcare at home is the REAL cause of this problem not being "educated".

BCG Disciple said:

---

What is the answer? As bad as it sounds, how do we change the trend with large scale war. Wars reset what is actually important, causes population spikes post war that leads to healthy societal demographics, and really emphasize a country first mentality where the population feels like they're doing their part.

---

Cut government by 80%. Problem will solve itself. And even if it doesn't, then we will still be better off.

aTmAg said:

---

A woman who goes to college is less likely to stay home to watch kids. They have incentive to do SOMETHING with their degree. The lack of childcare at home is the REAL cause of this problem not being "educated".

---

You hit the nail on the head and then you pulled it back out of the board by contradicting yourself with the last 3 words.

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and were cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

Great post.

I'd like to add there are other social currents that are causing the drift:

1) social media and phone use has made people less likely to stay in a long term relationship.
2) women don't need men and men don't need women. There is very little incentive for men and women to be together. You can order meals right to your door. You can get a handyman on a dozen apps. You can google how to change a tire. And the ubiquitous porn issue is obviously corrosive to relationships. Men don't have to put up with women's crap for more than 3 seconds because they are used to having limitless access to porn.
3) the minimum amount of education required to attain a good job is much higher. And the cost of this is astronomically higher. You can't just graduate from high school and work a factory job and be middle class. There are no factories and high school is a cruel joke.

Jeeper79 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

A woman who goes to college is less likely to stay home to watch kids. They have incentive to do SOMETHING with their degree. The lack of childcare at home is the REAL cause of this problem not being "educated".

---

You hit the nail on the head and then you pulled it back out of the board by contradicting yourself with the last 3 words.

---

My point is that it's not "education" that matters. It's the fact that they can't stay home to provide affordable childcare that is THE cause. Whether it's because they think they are "educated" and need to use their sociology degree, because they took out a stupid loan, or simply because they are feminist and think they should be working.

It's not "smart" or "educated" to have fewer kids.

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

No, none of this is true because if it was then it would not be occurring in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH.

This appears to be something more fundamental and central to the human experience that is likely biological in nature and an aspect of our genetics. This is a species wide negative environmental reproductive pressure. It's far bigger than policy of any kind, which is why the answer always goes back to urbanism and modern technology.

The only groups that have resistance to this are the deeply religious social conservatives from the Abrahamic religions. This does not apply to Hindus or Buddhists.

---

It's not happening in every single nation on earth. It's not happening in Africa or the Middle East, for example (places where women typically work in the home).

---

It's a function of wealth and education. The wealthier and more educated a population becomes, the fewer children they have. Thus, it makes sense it's not happening in Africa or the ME.

---

We are less educated as a populate than we were 50 years ago. Degrees like women studies are negative on the education scale.


And this is correlation not a causation anyway. Just because easy government loans sends more people to college nowadays does not mean that is why they are having less kids. A woman who goes to college is less likely to stay home to watch kids. They have incentive to do SOMETHING with their degree. The lack of childcare at home is the REAL cause of this problem not being "educated".

---

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the collective. Collectively, we are the most educated and knowledgeable we've been in history despite garbage degrees.

The poor, uneducated countries have more kids because they depend on labor and not automation. Because they are poor, they don't have access to contraception. Once we introduced the pill in the 60s, our TFR dropped dramatically. Females had to stay home before that because they had many kids to look after, but not necessarily by choice.

Education leads to innovation and wealth which leads to fewer kids.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Like almost every other problem we face, government is at fault.

Before government taxed, regulated, subsidized, and printed our cost of living through the roof, it was easy for a single breadwinner to fund a comfortable life for an entire family. The mom stayed home and watched the kids. And since they weren't paying for childcare per kid and cooking their food at home, having 5 kids wasn't much more expensive than having 1.

Now the cost of living is so high, that both parents need to work. And since they now have to pay for expensive child care at a time when they typically make starter salaries, most of the mom's salary goes towards childcare. Not to mention that childcare for 2 or 3 kids is twice or three times as expensive as for 1.

So of course families wait until they are making more money to have kids, and they have less of them.


All of this is thanks to big government. If we fix our government, we fix this problem.

---

No, none of this is true because if it was then it would not be occurring in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH.

This appears to be something more fundamental and central to the human experience that is likely biological in nature and an aspect of our genetics. This is a species wide negative environmental reproductive pressure. It's far bigger than policy of any kind, which is why the answer always goes back to urbanism and modern technology.

The only groups that have resistance to this are the deeply religious social conservatives from the Abrahamic religions. This does not apply to Hindus or Buddhists.

---

It's not happening in every single nation on earth. It's not happening in Africa or the Middle East, for example (places where women typically work in the home).

---

It absolutely is happening in the Middle East. All of the ME nations are in decline with a number already below replacement.

Birth rates are dropping in Africa now as well in those nations, like Nigeria, that have urbanized. South Africa was urbanized and it's almost at replacement and is declining every year.

You need to go look at the full trendline. The West began declining 200 years ago and then it went into overdrive post 2000.

MAFA.

Another positive change - after everyone starts, you know, actually having kids, the easiest and most natural thing to do to correct population collapse - would be something like Mike Lee's pro-family tax reform. It encourages many of the activities many of you have already mentioned.

Quote:

---

From the article:

In the U.S., some thought at first that women were simply delaying childbirth because of lingering economic uncertainty from the 2008 financial crisis.

In research published in 2021, the University of Maryland's Kearney and two co-authors looked for possible explanations for the continued drop. They found that state-level differences in parental abortion notification laws, unemployment, Medicaid availability, housing costs, contraceptive usage, religiosity, child-care costs and student debt could explain almost none of the decline. "We suspect that this shift reflects broad societal changes that are hard to measure or quantify," they conclude.
Kearney said while raising children is no more expensive than before, parents' preferences and perceived constraints have changed: "If people have a preference for spending time building a career, on leisure, relationships outside the home, that's more likely to come in conflict with childbearing."

---

I used to think the decline in births was due to the costs of childcare, student loans, etc. The studies show this issue is global and it appears to be it's both a time and cultural issue. Kids take a lot of time and people that do have kids commit more time to their one or two kids. In the 1950s, all of your friends were having kids in their 20s. Now you're probably missing out on "life" if you're at home taking care of a toddler.

Countries like Japan have been offering free maternal care, and Hungary eliminated income taxes for life if a woman has a child before she turns 30. None of it has worked. There's been a big shift in culture and it's hard to change that.

Quote:

---

Republican Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio said falling fertility matters beyond the economic pressures of a smaller labor force and unfunded Social Security. "Do you live in communities where there are smiling happy children, or where people are just aging?" he said in an interview. Lack of siblings and cousins, he said, contributes to children's social isolation.

He's studied potential solutions, in particular Hungary's approach, but hasn't seen proof of anything that works over the long term.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found little evidence that pronatalist policies lead to sustained rebounds in fertility. A woman may get pregnant sooner to capture a baby bonus, researchers say, but likely won't have more kids over the course of her lifetime.

---

No government policies have proven to make a long term impact.

Jeeper79 said:

---

It's a function of income and our greedy human nature. As standard of living increases, procreation turns from a need to a want - not optional to optional - benefit to burden. Strength in numbers at the family-unit level is no longer required.

When people discover they dont NEED kids to help on the farm or to work to support the family, many simply opt not to go that route. More disposable income for them.

Add to that the dropping marriage rates and you get a lot of people who aren't even coupling up to have kids.

---

This answer is closest so far. There is a very simple answer: parenthood is hard and modern people do not like doing hard things.

The childcare costs are driving people to not have kids. It's the childcare costs absorbing the money they would rather spend on vacations or other fun experiences.

It has far more to do with the emotional and time investment than it is the money. We are a very selfish generation (couple of generations) and people value their time and money over giving new humans a chance at life.

We can say this is biological. Maybe it is. But it seems much more clear to me that this is coinciding with a downturn in religiosity. Which is why you can find very religious families, both rich and poor, with lots of kids. Especially among sects like Catholics, orthodox and Mormons who have strong teachings against contraception ranging from a total ban (Catholics) to use only to space your large family correctly. Not to stop at a small number. Society does not teach selflessness anymore and the nihilism that is sinking in is reducing people's desire to procreate altogether. How many times have you heard "who would want to bring kids into this world?"

It's not economics.

Noble07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Republican Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio said falling fertility matters beyond the economic pressures of a smaller labor force and unfunded Social Security. "Do you live in communities where there are smiling happy children, or where people are just aging?" he said in an interview. Lack of siblings and cousins, he said, contributes to children's social isolation.

He's studied potential solutions, in particular Hungary's approach, but hasn't seen proof of anything that works over the long term.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found little evidence that pronatalist policies lead to sustained rebounds in fertility. A woman may get pregnant sooner to capture a baby bonus, researchers say, but likely won't have more kids over the course of her lifetime.

---

No government policies have proven to make a long term impact.

---

Yep. Because it's not a money issue. It's a heart issue.