- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,548
- 10,095
- 900
- Thread starter
- #21
The country is not ready or willing to absorb 750,000 more babies a year.
And so I take it you are in favor of this?
U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level
There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017 — "down 2 percent from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years," the CDC said.
The general fertility rate sank to a record low of 60.2 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — a 3 percent drop from 2016, the CDC said in its tally of provisional data for the year.
The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate – the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers.
"The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971," according to the report from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level
In terms you might be able to understand.
If there are fewer births and the population grows older, where will the money come to support the Federal/state/local governments?
Where will the employees come to work the jobs... robots? Oh of course.
Or are you traitorGator too old to care about the country, Americans,etc.?
Not any statement supported by facts but my observation.