US fertility rate dropped to lowest in a century as births dipped in 2023

Everything is expensive as hell these days.

And if that’s the case, then the question answers itself.

Not anymore, that's my point. Women's dreams are changing now that they can make real money. Men's dreams are not catching up.

> Yes young men today will be sad, but ultimately, this is a self-correcting problem

Self correcting in many ways but it is often 'corrected' by oppression and violence. Women did not forbid themselves from going outside or showing their faces.

Not guaranteed in any way. Depends very much on courts, lawyers, and the ability of judgements to be enforced.

Who would take that over a job with a 401k that moves with you?

> I see just as much anecdotal evidence that men are often (who knows what the percent breakdown is) the ones no longer seeking relationships, and articles lamenting the availability of highly desirable male partners

See the 'incel' movement. See the Joe Rogan listeners. See the responses to any post about dating sites and the fury that women get more matches than men.

Young men are angry.

lol, never miss an opportunity to make your pet political issue the solution I guess.

Not going to miss mine either. Let's back up to the part about faith playing a role. It is actually not faith itself that plays the role, it is the organization surrounding that faith. Having a support system is incredibly important when raising a child, even if that just means getting moral support at the weekly social gathering for mothers.

But people are turning their backs on these institutions. Why? Because they suck. No, it's not the people who suck, it's the institutions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/13/gen-z-...

It turns out that, in modern times, young women know LGBT people and actually like them! They also don't like organizations that espouse hateful messages about them (yes, saying someone will burn in hell for an eternity for being gay is an incredibly hateful message, no amount of twisting words will change that). The article goes into the other aspects of the conservatism turning people away from organized religion.

Religious institutions are important and can play a role in giving mothers the community they need to flourish. Unfortunately, conservatives would rather destroy community than adapt to the times. As a local "true" Christian said in a review of a local affirming church: "one star, not biblical, they just talk about how to be a nice person". Damn... that affirming church rejecting the good news by *checks notes* telling people to be nice to one another. Maybe that review was an incredible act of compassion, because it really has me considering going to that church.

By all means, I am absolutely pro-hospitals and healthcare funding, but it's not an important consideration when considering the overall birthrate.

Childcare is similarly not an issue. The sorts of people having a lot of kids are just not going to be using childcare a whole lot. One spouse will stay home.

As for the wealthy comments. I go to a fairly traditional parish in a HCOL West Coast city, and I don't think family income has a very large impact on # of children. We have families making anywhere from $60k to $200k+ and if anything, more money results in less children. At the end of the day America is very rich and well-off. You don't actually need a whole lot of money to raise a child as long as you can resist the memetic pressure to be like everyone else.

I mean, from what I've seen, income dictates whether or not a family decides to have seven kids versus six kids, but not 2-3. That's just a given.

I would more be talking about groups like traditional Catholics which have no such prohibitions, and frequently find themselves in very high-ranking fields. For example, I'd point to many Supreme Court Justices, several entrepreneurs, several media figures, etc. It's not just traditional Catholics [1], there are many groups with persistently high fertility rates.

It's not just Catholics. Conservative protestants also have much higher fertility. In particular, red states have higher fertility than blue states, and if you drill down deeper, it's simply due to these states having more of these groups than blue states, not any particular policy. The data are pretty unequivocal that government policy has basically no influence on people's decisions to have children.

Anyway, the higher fertility combined with the ability of full civic / economic participation means these groups will eventually come to dominate. There is simply no other way. We can talk about immigration until the cows come home, but overall, the global birth rate is sub replacement, so while any one country can migrate more people to solve its problem, this just punts the political football to another country which will invariably become more conservative.

To conclude, I can name several examples of 'conservative' groups with significantly higher birth rates, but I can't name a single liberal one. This is simply a cultural thing, but it doesn't matter for the economy. Regardless of who has kids, the kids pay the taxes necessary to sustain the welfare state. However, as I pointed out, it'll likely lead to political differences that many here won't like. As an example, I'd point to everyone's surprise that Gen Z is more conservative. I've been saying this for years now, because I first noticed the differential in fertility rates as a child in the 90s. People thought I was a chicken little, but we're seeing the results.

[1] Note, I'm calling out traditional Catholics here. The overall fertility rate for Catholics is on par with an average American. However, simply by breeding, there's already a huge faction within the Catholic church writ large. The progressives, with fewer kids, are dying out to be replaced by younger, more zealous figures. I think this will probably be the next step for the country as a whole as well

[2] EDIT: someone mentioned mormons... that's another good point. A small group of a few dozens of families moving west and now dominate one state and are important minorities in several others.

Having lots of kids is counter-cultural. I have three children, which is not that much. However, being in a well-off neighborhood full of cultural 'elite's in Portland, OR means that I am a pariah. I am especially a pariah because I enthusiastically say we want more. THis means we don't do what the other people are doing. Hence, we're resisting the memetic pressure.

Another way of saying this, on an economic front, would be 'keeping up with the Joneses'. If you ever read the millionaire next door stuff, you'll notice the main thing these people have is the ability to resist the pressure to spend. That, in addition to the magic of compound interest, which also applies to fertility rates, means that they end up with disproportionately more capital.

Problem is that we gate children behind careers and getting married which is atrocious because you will run out of years to start families if you wait too long.

Until the cavalry for extending lifespan and fertility arrive, we need to fix our economic and cultural system right now.

It's not like they're choosing no in a vacuum. The price of housing bleeds into everything else being expensive too, especially in HCOL areas. Childcare is incredibly expensive, and in many cases it makes more sense for one of the parents to not work than to pay for it. That of course makes the calculus of having a child more complicated, let alone more than one.

Moreover... many people are living very interesting engaging lives without kids that would have been impossible before due to the previous centrality of children to the social scene. In the past, not having kids was met with suspicion. Having children opened doors, economically, socially, and professionally, for better or worse.

Today, you are probably going to have more opportunities without kids. Indeed having kids limits you, versus someone who does not.

Perhaps you have more disposable income and savings because you don't have the expense of supporting a stay-at-home wife and two kids?

As to which one is more costly, I don't think if either of them is "really cheap therefore negligible"

The fact you think there can be enough for "everything" shows how far from reality you are. I hope that mentality dies and you start to understand there always priorities.