SaysWho? Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/americans-aren-t-making-enough-babies-replace-ourselves-n956931 Quote For the population to reproduce itself at current numbers, the “total fertility rate” needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age over their lifetime, researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in their report, released early Thursday. But the latest data show a current rate of just 1,765.5 per 1,000, or 16 percent below the number needed to keep the population stable without additions through immigration. The total fertility rate has been declining steadily for seven years, but the numbers for 2017 represent the biggest drop in recent history. The rate for 2016 was 1,820.5; for 2015, 1,843.5; and for 2014, 1,862.5. Quote Experts say the decline isn’t due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. This all seems really good (except for changing economics, which reads to me as not having money). EDIT: Put the updated quote in the top box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Quote 2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age per year Am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: Am I missing something here? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2.1 babies per year per woman? Or am I not understanding the wording because it's 5AM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: 2.1 babies per year per woman? Or am I not understanding the wording because it's 5AM? If you have two parents, you need two babies to replace both. It's probably 5am that's getting you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Per year though? I don't understand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: Per year though? I don't understand! Each woman isn't having two kids. But I see how that wording makes it seem that way. Now you're frying my brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBladeRoden Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 A woman having 2.1 babies per year is gonna end up with like 50 kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaljedi Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 This reminded me of that “you will not replace us” chant those hicks in Charlottesville were yelling about. Guess they are being replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 36 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: Am I missing something here? You missed the part where it says the current rate is 1,765.5 per 1,000. 2 children for every 1 woman keeps the population flat. Less than that and you end up with a declining population. For instance, Japan has been below 1.5 children per woman for a while now and it's freaking people in the country out. 1.77 children per woman is pretty bad unless you start supplementing that aging population with immigrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Yeah I get that, but wouldn't that be 2+ children per woman per lifetime, not per year? I should really, really go to bed. I feel like I'm gonna read this later and have a good chuckle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Xbob is right, the wording is referring to per year. I think it was just a mistake on their part. And this is why immigration is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I think the article has been corrected, and the paragraph now reads: Quote For the population to reproduce itself at current numbers, the “total fertility rate” needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age over their lifetime, researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in their report, released early Thursday. But the latest data show a current rate of just 1,765.5 per 1,000, or 16 percent below the number needed to keep the population stable without additions through immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: Yeah I get that, but wouldn't that be 2+ children per woman per lifetime, not per year? I should really, really go to bed. I feel like I'm gonna read this later and have a good chuckle. No, the article is written dumb and they fixed it. It was 2.1 children per woman over that woman's lifetime. It's now 1.77 children per woman over hat woman's lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Alright, good to know I wasn't going crazy I guess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 39 minutes ago, Xbob42 said: Alright, good to know I wasn't going crazy I guess! I was like "wtf is so confusing about this?" and then I reread that statement, like, 6 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbobo Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 is there any 1st world country with a 2.1 or higher birthrate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I did my part and had 2 kids. I just need to figure out how to have 0.1 more kids to really do my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, elbobo said: is there any 1st world country with a 2.1 or higher birthrate? None - it is literally a "First World Problem". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said: And this is why immigration is needed. I'll give those immigrants the babies they need 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: None - it is literally a "First World Problem". When you can't rape women Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 If my wife and I didn't have student loans and daycare wasn't so God damned expensive, we'd be doing our part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 This is very good news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 25 minutes ago, Reputator said: This is very good news. yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodporne Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 40 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said: I'll give those immigrants the babies they need Good to know you want to impregnate me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bloodporne said: Good to know you want to impregnate me. It's my worst kept secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Kids are just too damn expensive, just thinking of the cost for 1 is nuts -.- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I ask this not to be snarky but because I'm just not that great maff. What would the birth rate be if we weren't aborting around 800,000 babies a year? Is it statistically insignificant or would it make an actual difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dodger said: I ask this not to be snarky but because I'm just not that great maff. What would the birth rate be if we weren't aborting around 800,000 babies a year? Is it statistically insignificant or would it make an actual difference? As in that abortion would be legal or abortions would totally cease? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jose said: As in that abortion would be legal or abortions would totally cease? As in that if we weren't aborting approximately 800k babies a year in the U.S., so those 800k babies get born, would it have a statistically significant impact on the annual birth rate? So yes assuming abortion "totally ceased" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Vic20 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Its a start, but how can we make even less babies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dodger said: As in that if we weren't aborting approximately 800k babies a year in the U.S., so those 800k babies get born, would it have a statistically significant impact on the annual birth rate? So yes assuming abortion "totally ceased" There are 11.8 abortions per 1000 woman in the US, so that 1.77 per woman would become 1.78 per woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, Dodger said: I ask this not to be snarky but because I'm just not that great maff. What would the birth rate be if we weren't aborting around 800,000 babies a year? Is it statistically insignificant or would it make an actual difference? There were about 3.9 million births in 2017 and about 638K abortions in 2015 (the last reported data by the CDC), so it's not statistically insignificant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: There were about 3.9 million births in 2017 and about 638K abortions in 2015 (the last reported data by the CDC), so it's not statistically insignificant. So what would the birth rate be if we had say 4.5 million births instead of 3.9 million a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.