Fertility Rates in US Drop To Record Levels

Too much TV-watching in bed?

The birthrate can be below replacement and the population can still grow for periods without immigration.

Just imagine taking it to an extreme. Instead of having a spread of ages, imagine a population only has females from 18 to 30. Birthrate could remain a little under replacement for extended periods without seeing a decrease in population because the females producing children now will in large part live to see not only their offspring, but the offspring of their offspring, and possibly the offspring of their offspring's offspring.

To some extent that is probably what is responsible for the disparity you notice. The population has been growing for a long time, so it is bottom weighted. It will take a long time for birthrates modestly below replacement to result in a population decrease even excluding immigration.

"imagine a population only has females from 18 to 30"

Your imagination is hysterical. Or, are you imagining that immaculate conceptions are happening again?

I did not write, "...has only females from 18 to 30 ...",

I wrote "...only has females from 18 to 30..".

Still befuddled? Truly can't figure it out? The population only has females from 18 to 30. So no females 31 or older nor 17 or younger. Males however have not been age restricted.

If you are still having trouble, then have it your way. Fine, no males. Just readily accessable sperm banks and fertility clinics. It is of course immaterial to the example.

Still unsatisfied? Fine, the example does not even need fertility clinics nor sperm banks. Enough women are pregnant in the population at the time discussed to have a birthrate for the next 9 months that will be slightly under replacement. Guess what, the example STILL works. In 9 months the population will have grown, even though birthrate was under replacement.

Please note while I did not state at the outset the lack of restrictions on males, I also did not state any restriction on fertility clinics. There were also no statements about food and water available. What was indicated was that birthrate continued somewhat below replacement which should indicate that some method of achieving pregnancy and continuing successfully through birth was available.

If you want yp dream up immaculate conception, that is your fantasy. The mere fact that you believe immaculate conception was once a reality (why else would you say 'happening again') suggests your perception isn't that firmly tied to reality from the outset.

Making it bold doesn't somehow validate your lack of understanding as correct.

Can you not hear the difference? Try to unlatch you desperate grasp om wanting to be infallable (and wanting me to be without valid point).

'has only' implies a condition of the subject having exclusively the object "He has only work clothes with him".

'only has' implies a condition of the subject having objects which universally some quality described: "He only has shirts with collars".

The kicker is, you knew what I was saying before your first comment claiming otherwise.

Though, as I showed earlier, even if you misunderstood genuinely, it is immaterial to the point. It can be understood even in the confused state you profess.. Belaboring thr point demonstrates how desperately you want something to fight about.

Maybe it is time to ask yourself what is the real problem bothering you.

For the last time, you wrote"Just imagine taking it to an extreme. Instead of having a spread of ages, imagine a population only has females from 18 to 30."

At no time did I ever write, ".has only females from 18 to 30."

I copied what you wrote.

Sorry if you were confused.

I'm not confused about that exchange. Fear not. Even though we don't share a state of confusion, progress can be made.

Here is one way forward:

1. Just consider what I said concerning the placement of 'not' in the sentence to be wrong. Chock it up to a misstep or some misunderstanding on my part. If there really is something to the placement of a modifier in a sentence, it obviously isn't that critical for you; you've gotten along just fine without that knowledge for multiple decades, so it isn't critical one way or the other for you at this point.

2. Use your assurance that you are correct and have been from the outset to allow yourself to turn your attention to other things. Move past this sticking point.

3. Consider something else: perhaps the actual point being made by the comment, i.e. that population can grow for periods even with below replacement birthrate due to age distribution in the population. If you find it easier, perhaps limit yourself to reading things less likely to upset you....comments not made by me.

" Just consider what I said concerning the placement of 'not' in the sentence to be wrong"

Not? Not? How did this enter into any conversation?

You are truly delusional!!!!!!!! And a waste of my time!

If I am such a waste of your time, why is it so difficult for you to flow the suggestion to point your attention elsewhere.

I misspoke concerning 'not'. I was mulling over how to explain the difference that is made apparent with different placement of modifiers. I made an error. That doesn't make me dillusional though it does seem to make me irresistable to you.

Please restrain yourself.

"Birthrate could remain a little under replacement for extended periods without seeing a decrease in population because the females producing children now will in large part live to see not only their offspring, but the offspring of their offspring, and possibly the offspring of their offspring's offspring."

That is true. Taken to the extreme, suppose medical technology reaches the point where we have achieved immortality, then only one child born would result in a population increase.

I think the fertility rate can be directly attributed to how safe people feel...

So, you agree with #3.

No I don't think whoever happens to be in office at the time has anything to do with birth rates....It does seem to correlate with wealth...or perhaps GDP....

Perhaps.

It is directly attributable, but it is inversely correlated.

"... I have two OT votes from people who are insecure with the truth. Or delusional. ..."

.

If you had voted the comment off-topic, it would have received 5 votes.

Are you suggesting there are at least two other people active on CR4 that think like you? Perish the thought!

Well, they've got to go somewhere. After all, the UK is now full. Weren't most of the individuals in the green and some of the yellow period also immigrants? <Ducks to avoid incoming thrown objects>

Studies with rats have proven that fertility drops when populations become too great.

I think you are confusing mortality with fertility....

This is a well documented phenomenon with economically and technical advanced societies. Birth rates decrease while population expands for the following reasons:

• more babies live to adulthood ( breeding age)
• more adults live to an older age

Of course, this has lead to the current problem in the developed societies, fewer productive young to support an aging and less productive population.

This plot from the report (U.S. Birth Rate Report - CDC 2017) seems to indicate that women now are waiting later to have children, perhaps preferring to pursue a career. The birthing rate for younger women has declined whereas the rate for older women has increased. And older women have fewer years to have children, so the overall rate will be lower.

Just my observations...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

I seem to remember Russia having the same problem towards the end of the Soviet era when hopelessness and despair were the reason for their not reproducing. I would imagine we are scraping the same bottom ourselves.

Nope....money does buy happiness it seems...

https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction

Oh come on now, money doesn't buy happiness. Isn't that what all the rich people try to tell us?

Rich people are notorious liars....

https://www.livescience.com/18683-rich-people-lie-cheat-study.html