Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
SaysWho?

Americans aren't making enough babies to replace ourselves

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age per year

Am I missing something here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.1 babies per year per woman? Or am I not understanding the wording because it's 5AM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :thinking:

 

Now you're frying my brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminded me of that “you will not replace us” chant those hicks in Charlottesville were yelling about.  Guess they are being replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

:lol: 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. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

And this is why immigration is needed.

 

I'll give those immigrants the babies they need :fap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

I'll give those immigrants the babies they need :fap:

Good to know you want to impregnate me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Good to know you want to impregnate me. 

 

It's my worst kept secret. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×