SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Half a million fewer children? The coming COVID baby bust:
The COVID-19 episode will likely lead to a large, lasting baby bust. The pandemic has thrust the country into an economic recession. Economic reasoning and past evidence suggest that this will lead people to have fewer children. The decline in births could be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births next year. We base this expectation on lessons drawn from economic studies of fertility behavior, along with data presented here from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the 1918 Spanish Flu.
[...] When the public health crisis first took hold, some people playfully speculated that there would be a spike in births in nine months, as people were "stuck home" with their romantic partners. Such speculation is based on persistent myths about birth spikes occurring nine months after blizzards or major electricity blackouts. As it turns out, those stories tend not to hold up to statistical examination (Udry, 1970). But the COVID-19 crisis is amounting to much more than a temporary stay-at-home order. It is leading to tremendous economic loss, uncertainty, and insecurity. That is why birth rates will tumble.
[...] There is ample evidence that birth rates are, in fact, pro-cyclical. This is shown, for instance, in the work by Dettling and Kearney (2014) described above. Their analysis of birth rates in metropolitan areas finds that all else equal, a one percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in birth rates. Schaller (2016) analyzes the relationship between state-level unemployment rates and birth rates, and finds that a one percentage-point increase in state-year unemployment rates is associated with a 0.9 to 2.2 percent decrease in birth rates. Other evidence shows that women whose husbands lose their jobs at some point during their marriage ultimately have fewer children (Lindo, 2010). This suggests that transitory changes in economic conditions lead to changes in birth rates.
[...] What are the likely implications of the COVID-19 episode for fertility? The monthly unemployment rate jumped from 3.5 percent to 14.7 percent in April and to 13.3 percent in May. Note that the BLS also indicate that technical issues in collecting these data likely mean that the actual unemployment rates in those months were likely 5 and 3 percentage points higher, respectively. That would bring them to about 19.7 and 16.3 percent. Although it is difficult to forecast the 2020 annual unemployment rate, assuming a 7 to 10 percentage-point jump to 10.6 to 13.6 percent seems reasonable. Based on the findings presented above, this economic shock alone implies a 7 to 10 percent drop in births next year. With 3.8 million births occurring in 2019, that would amount to a decline of between 266,000 and 380,000 births in 2021.
On top of the economic impact, there will likely be a further decline in births as a direct result of the public health crisis and the uncertainty and anxiety it creates, and perhaps to some extent, social distancing. Our analysis of the Spanish Flu indicated a 15 percent decline in annual births in a pandemic that was not accompanied by a major recession. And this occurred during a period in which no modern contraception existed to easily regulated fertility.
Combining these two effects, we could see a drop of perhaps 300,000 to 500,000 births in the U.S. Additional reductions in births may be seen if the labor market remains weak beyond 2020. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are likely to be long-lasting and will lead to a permanent loss of income for many people. We expect that many of these births will not just be delayed – but will never happen. There will be a COVID-19 baby bust. That will be yet another cost of this terrible episode.
Journal References:
1.) Melissa S . Kearney, Phillip B . Levine. Subsidized Contraception, Fertility, and Sexual Behavior, (DOI: rest.91.1.137)
2.) Melissa S. Kearney, Riley Wilson. Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom, Review of Economics and Statistics (DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00739)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:36AM (5 children)
The one thing I wonder, though, is whether women are consciously choosing such or being indoctrinated into such? What I mean is that we have not even reached the first era of people dying off childless. All the way until the 70s, the birth rate was > 2 and single households were relatively rare. How are people going to feel about their life decisions when their post-menopause, their family is mostly dead, friends have done as friends do over time, and they are ultimately left with nothing and nobody?
Being a strong empowered women (or a man "going their own way", as well) sounds nice and empowering when you're young. But as these people age and find themselves alone, while others surround themselves with the families they've created, are they genuinely going to be happy with their life decisions? It's just such a weird society we've created where being a meaningless cog in a corporate machine is somehow some empowering behavior, while raising a family - literally the one and only thing that keeps humanity alive, is some quaint desire? Not exactly the makings of a healthy, sustainable, civilization.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:07PM
People get older. They die. News at 11.
Given that men die younger, what's needed are more cougars to restore the balance. And more lesbian couples.
Because who wants to spend their days changing the diapers of some old demented coot, and then spending them final years alone?
It's simple math - men want younger women who will be able to look after them when they are older. So why shouldn't women be thinking the same? Looking for someone who won't be a burden, then croak and leave them alone? Because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And men with Alzheimer's are a physical danger to their caregivers, or others in old age homes. They've repeatedly physically assaulted or even killed other residents and not been charged because they are not competent.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:58PM
And then came the 80s, technical progress got squashed, things that were steadily improving before, stagnated and then started degrading. The murkier the future, the riskier was the gamble of having a child; when one too many means irreversible poverty in perpetuity, anyone with any sense will err on the side of caution.
Those who would have 3 children on expectation of growing prosperity, limited themselves to 2 on observation of it stagnating; to 1 noticing it falling; to 0 seeing politicians extra busy creating a catastrophe.
Children are about future; future is about hope. Creating hopelessness, for whatever political reason, results in less children. Easy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:51PM (1 child)
It's pretty goddamn clear that every White person is being brainwashed to self-destruct the race from birth by the Jews and their White race traitor minions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:11PM
We're all human you bigoted fool.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @10:33PM
There are massive amounts of regretful, miserable parents, and that includes old people in nursing homes. It is a myth that your children will necessarily be around to take care of you in old age; in fact, the opposite is commonly true.
Having children you don't want just because there's a small chance they might hang out with you when you're old is incredibly selfish and a recipe for absolute misery. Being a parent is a 24/7 thing, and should only be done if you really want to do it.
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that having children would be absolutely miserable for people who don't want them. It's such a simple concept.
There's no guarantee you'll be alone if you don't have kids at all, and far from a guarantee that you won't be alone if you have kids. What brings one person meaning might bring another person abject misery.
Having children is a good way to make yourself a "meaningless cog in a corporate machine." You have kids? Well, then you can't leave the job that you hate and pursue what you're actually interested in, because that's not financially feasible! If you have kids, corporations have you by the balls.
So if you're against being a cog and want freedom, family life isn't for you.
Plenty of people are still having children. But there's nothing inherently bad about humanity ceasing to exist, if that's what people choose.