Birth Rate Shiftings - Other Implications

[DGS49]

The New York Times is wrong about the birth rate

The Times says a boom of older mothers is coming to reverse low fertility, but the math is against them.

www.theargumentmag.com

The article critiques a piece published in the NYT that claims the birth rate is not really decreasing, but rather birth TIMES are shifting from the early 20's to 30's and possibly beyond. In other words, women who in previous generations would have popped out their kids in ages 18-25 are now waiting until they are in their mid-30's to even start "trying."

Maybe so, but my personal observation asks, What does this mean?

Not medically. I'm not concerned that these older women will have difficult deliveries or unhealthy babies. I'm talking about socially and culturally.

Look at what happens when kids are born to younger parents. The kids are growing up when the parents are still finding their footing, financially and emotionally. They are in many cases not fully adult in their level of social maturity. They don't own a home, and are struggling to support a tolerable lifestyle while the kids are still in grade school. There is little money for extras or the "latest" toys and clothing. This has been the norm for a couple generations now, and it is worse TODAY, as buying a home has become more challenging than it has been for a long, long time. I dare say, most of the people who are reading this were born when their parents were 29 or younger. (I was the fifth child in my "good Catholic" family, born when my mother was 32…and we struggled).

But consider the child born to a woman (couple?) in their 30's or early 40's. which is happening more and more often. THOSE parents are probably mature adults. They have already purchased their first home. They can afford "professional" child care if needed. They can afford to support the kids' childhood in ways that the younger couples cannot. Those kids will likely go to a respectable pre-school, and go to kindergarten fully prepared to start serious learning. They can get their kids lessons and private coaching in sports. They can afford tutors to help the kids through academic difficulties. They can place their kids on "traveling" sports teams and send them to skill-based summer camps to enhance their skills. They can send their kids to private or parochial schools and they probably don't live in an area where the public schools are sub-par. When the kids graduate from HS, the range of possible colleges expands greatly due to the better financial condition of the parents.

The life prospects for the delayed kids are much more promising than for the kids raised by parents in their late teens and 20's.

And this will inevitably lead to greater "inequality" in the next generations. Is that a bad thing?

 

[80zephyr]

Dying when your kid is thirty ain't a good thing either.

 

[1srelluc]

Nope, nobody wants their old dried-up uterus.....Add to that they will go through menopause about the time a kid hits their teens.....Nasty combination right there.

Marry young, have kids, and stay married to the same woman, enjoy retirement.

 

[Winston]

Nope, nobody wants their old dried-up uterus.....Add to that they will go through menopause about the time a kid hits their teens.....Nasty combination right there.

Marry young, have kids, and stay married to the same woman, enjoy retirement.

Two things. First, women who give birth to their last child when they are older live longer.

Second, children born when their mother is young live longer.

Seems nature works this out.

 

[riseabovethis]

Nope, nobody wants their old dried-up uterus.....Add to that they will go through menopause about the time a kid hits their teens.....Nasty combination right there.

Marry young, have kids, and stay married to the same woman, enjoy retirement.

I want their old dried up uterus because it comes with an old dried up vagina and I have an old dried up penis to put in it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The New York Times is wrong about the birth rate

The Times says a boom of older mothers is coming to reverse low fertility, but the math is against them.

www.theargumentmag.com

The article critiques a piece published in the NYT that claims the birth rate is not really decreasing, but rather birth TIMES are shifting from the early 20's to 30's and possibly beyond. In other words, women who in previous generations would have popped out their kids in ages 18-25 are now waiting until they are in their mid-30's to even start "trying."

Maybe so, but my personal observation asks, What does this mean?

Not medically. I'm not concerned that these older women will have difficult deliveries or unhealthy babies. I'm talking about socially and culturally.

Look at what happens when kids are born to younger parents. The kids are growing up when the parents are still finding their footing, financially and emotionally. They are in many cases not fully adult in their level of social maturity. They don't own a home, and are struggling to support a tolerable lifestyle while the kids are still in grade school. There is little money for extras or the "latest" toys and clothing. This has been the norm for a couple generations now, and it is worse TODAY, as buying a home has become more challenging than it has been for a long, long time. I dare say, most of the people who are reading this were born when their parents were 29 or younger. (I was the fifth child in my "good Catholic" family, born when my mother was 32…and we struggled).

But consider the child born to a woman (couple?) in their 30's or early 40's. which is happening more and more often. THOSE parents are probably mature adults. They have already purchased their first home. They can afford "professional" child care if needed. They can afford to support the kids' childhood in ways that the younger couples cannot. Those kids will likely go to a respectable pre-school, and go to kindergarten fully prepared to start serious learning. They can get their kids lessons and private coaching in sports. They can afford tutors to help the kids through academic difficulties. They can place their kids on "traveling" sports teams and send them to skill-based summer camps to enhance their skills. They can send their kids to private or parochial schools and they probably don't live in an area where the public schools are sub-par. When the kids graduate from HS, the range of possible colleges expands greatly due to the better financial condition of the parents.

The life prospects for the delayed kids are much more promising than for the kids raised by parents in their late teens and 20's.

And this will inevitably lead to greater "inequality" in the next generations. Is that a bad thing?

This is an interesting topic if it were expanded upon beyond as far as you went with it. It cetainly would affect culture and even civilization to some extent.

But alas...riseabove killed it for me. Can't see it getting better from there. lol...