What is wrong with a slowing birth rate? The planet has more people than it can support. I'm an extremely liberal person and just don't understand the concern. Please educate me. Thanks.
It's not you, Susan. It's them. If the concern was really about increasing the U.S. population, we could simply welcome immigrants and make it easier for them to become citizens. We could have passed the DREAM Act and created a real path to citizenship for Dreamers and DACA-eligible. But it's not about population in general. It's about increasing the white Christian population, keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" and maternal, and making it increasingly difficult for anybody but the most privileged to get ahead—as if it's not already hard enough.
This isn’t about coercing anyone into childbirth, nor is it about preserving white Christian demographics. It’s about the injustice of a system where people who want children are blocked by costs, health risks, and lack of support. The problem isn’t too few babies, it’s too many barriers.
Exactly, and I appreciate that. You’re right to call out the political agenda behind some of this. I’m just focused on a different but related failure: how we’ve created a system where people who do want children are blocked by unnecessary obstacles. One doesn’t cancel out the other, they both deserve attention.
I came here to say something similar as Susan. Human needs are stripping the planet and contributing to the extinction of many species. World population more than doubled from 3.9B in 1973 to 8.2B in 2024. In an ideal world we would look at fertility through a global lens and resource ways to support parents; especially mothers. But encouraging some families to have six children seems incredibly irresponsible and short sighted. There is a difference between birth and population change rates, but they need to be considered together to plan for the planet’s future.
Catharine, no one’s arguing for unchecked population growth or six-child medals as serious policy. The point is that many people want kids and are being blocked by financial, medical, and systemic barriers. That’s not about overpopulation, it’s about justice. We can absolutely care about planetary sustainability and reproductive equity. Pretending it’s a binary choice misses the real crisis: not too many births, but too many barriers for those who want them.
I remember two families in the church I attended seemingly having a contest about who could have the most children. The second family quit the race after the first one had a Down Syndrome baby. That second family had originally decided to quit after 5 children, but number 5 turned out to be twins, which they interpreted as God's will for them to keep going. Even after all these years, they still have me shaking my head. I am reminded the the older children in that second family were really glad to get to an age where they could get away from being forced to care for the younger ones.
You’re asking the wrong question. The issue isn’t that birth rates are dropping, it’s why. When people are hemorrhaging during delivery, drowning in childcare costs, or being told by insurers not to have kids at all, that’s not population control. That’s systemic cruelty. If you’re truly liberal, you should care about that or ask why you don’t.
Yes. You can care about all of it, about climate, overpopulation, and sustainability, and still recognize that it’s a failure when people who want kids are blocked by cost, risk, or lack of support. A declining population isn’t the problem. A society that punishes parenthood is.
A lot of people have had healthy discussions about what a sustainable, stable population could be if many of the non-sustainable practices were replaced with sustainable ones, and it seems the number doesn't necessarily have to be 'less than we have now'. Of course, make no changes and continue doing what's currently cheap and convenient, and your position there is likely fairly simply the correct one.
But why people are upset about it? It disturbs the economic foundation that past century has based its growth, productivity, and stability models on. Fewer younger folks to support more older folks becomes a strain on the system, and growing the younger population is currently the only entertained solution.
Not counting Sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN projections, world population will peak somewhere between the 2030s and 2050s, and then decline for the foreseeable future.
Fertility rates are complicated. The Nordic countries have excellent maternal support, but they all also have fertility rates lower than the United States. South Korea's fertility rate is 0.74 and 0.58 in Seoul, Bulgaria scores 460 days of paid leave but still has a fertility rate of 1.78.
So while I support every recommendation made in this post, and firmly believe they would make mother's lives much easier and would lower the cost of raising children, the supports would be unlikely to significantly raise our fertility rate. And I don't think cash bonuses will make any difference (South Korea offers $23,000 over 8 years, but heavily front loaded over the first three years. It has made very little difference.).
Thank you, Dr. Jetelina, for laying out what so many policymakers ignore. Birth rates are falling not because people don’t value family, but because the system punishes them for trying. A $5,000 bonus or a “Motherhood Medal” is insulting when what families need is affordable care, paid leave, childcare, and safety. Stop the stunts. Fix the foundation.
They also need access to medical care and to not be punished for what nature inflicts on them (i.e. miscarriages). It is not safe to be pregnant when you can't get the care you need, when you are judged as a criminal for something you can't prevent. Miscarriages are nature's way of letting you know that your fetus is not viable, and that has to do with genetics, not with something you did to cause the miscarriage.
I definitely think we need to support mothers and families better, but I also think that the declining human birthrate is a gift to the world. There are already too many people — pushing out all other species, polluting the planet with plastics, warming the climate too quickly, etc. A future with fewer people on this planet would likely be better for everyone and all other living things.
I think until the baby boomer generation declines substantially, younger people will be needed to care for them. I know many people in my age cohort who are caring for an elderly parent and a grandchild. I often wonder who will care for us? In general, the population of the United States is getting older and sicker. We have decided that immigrants are no longer welcome. What’s to become of us?
I’m not suggesting (as our current administration is) that women of childbearing age become breeders. I’m saying that without enough young people, America will be desolate.
Yes, and add the solvency of social security as well. There are a lot of people who do not see the "point" of having children, and I like to ask them who they think will be providing their medical care when they themselves are old, who be paying payroll taxes when they want to access their benefits. ( I personally, think we should open our borders and welcome people who want to move here, but that is a separate topic. )
That situation will become permanent in any nonexpanding population. Until we figure out how to deal with it without expanding the population, desolation is inevitable.
The "trad wives" fantasy is just that: a fantasy. And a prescription for women to be overworked and lose their minds. The traditional family was not one man, one woman, and 2-3 children. It was an extended family that helped out all along the way: aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins.....a whole network of people lending a hand. No one woman was living in a house with no help from husband or family trying to do all the work herself. It really does take a village, and they had villages.
And most women have always worked at something more than house holding and child rearing.
As a Canadian I must comment on what looks like our abysmal stats, because here childbirth and child care are handled very differently than in the US. A woman with a low-risk pregnancy may be seen by her family doctor until the 7th or 8th month, and then referred to an OB/gyn or told how to contact a birthing centre staffed by midwives if she prefers. (Use of midwives differs by province, in British Columbia, it is 18% per 100,000.) In 2024 the infant mortality rate, 4.5 per 100,000 was lower than the US (5.6 per 100,000). In our more remote areas, family doctors are trained to deliver babies. We have a federal policy that provides 52 weeks of parental leave, up to 35 weeks may be taken by one parent. Claimants receive up to 55% of their salaries, and some employers top that benefit up, to over 90%. Licensed childcare costs around $10 per child daily. We are nothing like the US. I had twins, extensive specialized care, 10-day hospital stay post delivery, never saw a bill.
Brava! Thank you for telling it like it is. Until our country CARES about women, babies, children, and youth, it will be very hard to expect an increase in birth rates. We are a backwards country in this regard, as your data shows. Thanks for always bringing the evidence to the table.
This needs to be on the front page of major newspapers and the lead story on the evening news. Eloquent and heart felt. We have all been there in some way.
The planet does NOT need more babies. Autocrats do. Ask yourself why. Worker bees and canon fodder are two reasons that come to mind … Human population thru time here https://youtu.be/vJ5p3pZlBi4?feature=shared
It isn't quite that simple. The economy itself needs more people to keep expanding and to provide elder care as the ratio of elders to working people remains stubbornly high in a nonexpanding population. I agree emphatically that we need to reduce human population, but we have to invent systems to deal with the fallout gracefully to avoid economic collapse and widespread destitution.
That can provide temporary mitigation in the short term, but it leaves us with the fundamental problem, that our economy must continue to grow or it will fail.
I agree. Please reread, with emphasis on the word "problem". The fact that the economy and the population must grow is a problem that must be solved. Importing people from overcrowded places is a temporary solution at best.
Thank you for sharing your personal story. I think its so helpful to know how policies impact people's personal lives, even those of us with privilege.
I suspect that women who would have a baby for the $5,000 will be women who are poorer, less educated, and who need immediate cash without considering the future costs of health care and raising a child.
To be fair, I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that women might choose to have a baby in order to get cash. Rather, I’m pretty sure the argument is that women want to have children, or more children, but are deterred by the cost, and $5K helps with a tiny fraction of that cost. Of course it’s not enough!!But the idea that women (especially poor, less educated women) have children in order to receive benefits is simply wrong and related to the damaging “welfare queen” myth.
I just googled around to find this infographic from the USDA: estimates $233K to raise a child born in 2015 not including college. So a child born in 2025 must be over $300K (and add another $100K-$200K if you’re contributing to the cost of college) 🤯 I gave birth last year and $5K didn’t cover the out-of-pocket delivery cost.
Yes, childcare is expensive. REALLY expensive. But one of my motivators for not having a third child is that college is even more expensive.
I think the cost of a college education has to be factored into one of the reasons why some people choose to have smaller families. It was definitely part of our thought process.
It is practically untenable right now to have two children in child care AND have two working parents. Even if your children are elementary school age, summer camp programs are also ridiculously expensive.
The parenting groups always have complaints about parents who send sick kids to school because of exposing other kids to illness. That's valid, BUT most people don't have enough sick time to be able to stay home every time their child has a sniffle or an upset stomach.
If I have two kids and they tag-team some illness (as we know they do), and then if I catch it, then you could be looking at 5 or 6 work days lost... and that's for ONE cold that goes through your house. That could be your allotment of sick time for the year.
So, I never blame the parent for sending a kid to school sick. I am so fortunate to have a robust village, but it's still a challenge under that circumstance, so I can't even imagine what it would be for someone who doesn't have as much support.
It's society. We need to provide more support to working parents. Give them paid sick time. Give them flexibility. Figure out how to subsidize childcare, summer camp, and higher education.
Make it work. I would have loved to have a third kid, but the logistics are insane.
Adding... I am so sorry for your fertility struggles and your loss. I've been there, too, and it's heartbreaking. Even after you're able to create the family you always dreamed of, the loss always feels raw. 💔
I was unable to carry to term due to a uterine malformation. What helps me is realizing that our own pregnancies not going to term left a bit more room and reduced pollution levels for other species compared to having those pregnancies be successful. There are still times when i think of what might have been, but it helps me to know what our loss allows to exist. I guess in a way it becomes a gift to the world, and a gift which is difficult can be more meaningful. Maybe that will help you, too, Missy.
Should a declining birth rate be "fixed"? Our economic system is based on continual growth. That is not sustainable. The "carrying capacity" of the earth is not infinite + has been passed in some regions. My biggest contribution to reducing my carbon footprint is by not having children. As a retired RN, Thank you for enumerating the dangers of pregnancy. I think many men don't realize the dangers.
Starting with your personal story sets a wonderful example of how science and story work together. I am so glad you had good support through your early period of losses. And, of course, glad you have two children. I read your every post and learn from content and tone. Thank you.
A quick history lesson, the Germans had the Cross of Honor of the German Mother in the late 1930s and early 1940s for mothers that had four or more children. History may not repeat itself here, but it certainly rhymes.
What is wrong with a slowing birth rate? The planet has more people than it can support. I'm an extremely liberal person and just don't understand the concern. Please educate me. Thanks.
It's not you, Susan. It's them. If the concern was really about increasing the U.S. population, we could simply welcome immigrants and make it easier for them to become citizens. We could have passed the DREAM Act and created a real path to citizenship for Dreamers and DACA-eligible. But it's not about population in general. It's about increasing the white Christian population, keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" and maternal, and making it increasingly difficult for anybody but the most privileged to get ahead—as if it's not already hard enough.
This isn’t about coercing anyone into childbirth, nor is it about preserving white Christian demographics. It’s about the injustice of a system where people who want children are blocked by costs, health risks, and lack of support. The problem isn’t too few babies, it’s too many barriers.
I agree with what you wrote, but we're talking about two different things.
Exactly, and I appreciate that. You’re right to call out the political agenda behind some of this. I’m just focused on a different but related failure: how we’ve created a system where people who do want children are blocked by unnecessary obstacles. One doesn’t cancel out the other, they both deserve attention.
I came here to say something similar as Susan. Human needs are stripping the planet and contributing to the extinction of many species. World population more than doubled from 3.9B in 1973 to 8.2B in 2024. In an ideal world we would look at fertility through a global lens and resource ways to support parents; especially mothers. But encouraging some families to have six children seems incredibly irresponsible and short sighted. There is a difference between birth and population change rates, but they need to be considered together to plan for the planet’s future.
Catharine, no one’s arguing for unchecked population growth or six-child medals as serious policy. The point is that many people want kids and are being blocked by financial, medical, and systemic barriers. That’s not about overpopulation, it’s about justice. We can absolutely care about planetary sustainability and reproductive equity. Pretending it’s a binary choice misses the real crisis: not too many births, but too many barriers for those who want them.
I remember two families in the church I attended seemingly having a contest about who could have the most children. The second family quit the race after the first one had a Down Syndrome baby. That second family had originally decided to quit after 5 children, but number 5 turned out to be twins, which they interpreted as God's will for them to keep going. Even after all these years, they still have me shaking my head. I am reminded the the older children in that second family were really glad to get to an age where they could get away from being forced to care for the younger ones.
You’re asking the wrong question. The issue isn’t that birth rates are dropping, it’s why. When people are hemorrhaging during delivery, drowning in childcare costs, or being told by insurers not to have kids at all, that’s not population control. That’s systemic cruelty. If you’re truly liberal, you should care about that or ask why you don’t.
Can I care about everything you wrote and still think a declining population is a positive thing?
Yes. You can care about all of it, about climate, overpopulation, and sustainability, and still recognize that it’s a failure when people who want kids are blocked by cost, risk, or lack of support. A declining population isn’t the problem. A society that punishes parenthood is.
Thank you for that perspective. When I think globally, humans are mold on an orange. Individually, from a justice stance, you are quite correct.
A lot of people have had healthy discussions about what a sustainable, stable population could be if many of the non-sustainable practices were replaced with sustainable ones, and it seems the number doesn't necessarily have to be 'less than we have now'. Of course, make no changes and continue doing what's currently cheap and convenient, and your position there is likely fairly simply the correct one.
But why people are upset about it? It disturbs the economic foundation that past century has based its growth, productivity, and stability models on. Fewer younger folks to support more older folks becomes a strain on the system, and growing the younger population is currently the only entertained solution.
Not counting Sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN projections, world population will peak somewhere between the 2030s and 2050s, and then decline for the foreseeable future.
Fertility rates are complicated. The Nordic countries have excellent maternal support, but they all also have fertility rates lower than the United States. South Korea's fertility rate is 0.74 and 0.58 in Seoul, Bulgaria scores 460 days of paid leave but still has a fertility rate of 1.78.
So while I support every recommendation made in this post, and firmly believe they would make mother's lives much easier and would lower the cost of raising children, the supports would be unlikely to significantly raise our fertility rate. And I don't think cash bonuses will make any difference (South Korea offers $23,000 over 8 years, but heavily front loaded over the first three years. It has made very little difference.).
Celibacy can fix that.
Do you know who traditionally has lots of babies? Immigrants! We call their babies Americans.
Thank you, Dr. Jetelina, for laying out what so many policymakers ignore. Birth rates are falling not because people don’t value family, but because the system punishes them for trying. A $5,000 bonus or a “Motherhood Medal” is insulting when what families need is affordable care, paid leave, childcare, and safety. Stop the stunts. Fix the foundation.
Imagine thinking that the reason people don't have kids is because they don't understand how her menstrual cycle works. 🙄
They also need access to medical care and to not be punished for what nature inflicts on them (i.e. miscarriages). It is not safe to be pregnant when you can't get the care you need, when you are judged as a criminal for something you can't prevent. Miscarriages are nature's way of letting you know that your fetus is not viable, and that has to do with genetics, not with something you did to cause the miscarriage.
I definitely think we need to support mothers and families better, but I also think that the declining human birthrate is a gift to the world. There are already too many people — pushing out all other species, polluting the planet with plastics, warming the climate too quickly, etc. A future with fewer people on this planet would likely be better for everyone and all other living things.
I think until the baby boomer generation declines substantially, younger people will be needed to care for them. I know many people in my age cohort who are caring for an elderly parent and a grandchild. I often wonder who will care for us? In general, the population of the United States is getting older and sicker. We have decided that immigrants are no longer welcome. What’s to become of us?
I’m not suggesting (as our current administration is) that women of childbearing age become breeders. I’m saying that without enough young people, America will be desolate.
Yes, and add the solvency of social security as well. There are a lot of people who do not see the "point" of having children, and I like to ask them who they think will be providing their medical care when they themselves are old, who be paying payroll taxes when they want to access their benefits. ( I personally, think we should open our borders and welcome people who want to move here, but that is a separate topic. )
That situation will become permanent in any nonexpanding population. Until we figure out how to deal with it without expanding the population, desolation is inevitable.
The "trad wives" fantasy is just that: a fantasy. And a prescription for women to be overworked and lose their minds. The traditional family was not one man, one woman, and 2-3 children. It was an extended family that helped out all along the way: aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins.....a whole network of people lending a hand. No one woman was living in a house with no help from husband or family trying to do all the work herself. It really does take a village, and they had villages.
And most women have always worked at something more than house holding and child rearing.
As a Canadian I must comment on what looks like our abysmal stats, because here childbirth and child care are handled very differently than in the US. A woman with a low-risk pregnancy may be seen by her family doctor until the 7th or 8th month, and then referred to an OB/gyn or told how to contact a birthing centre staffed by midwives if she prefers. (Use of midwives differs by province, in British Columbia, it is 18% per 100,000.) In 2024 the infant mortality rate, 4.5 per 100,000 was lower than the US (5.6 per 100,000). In our more remote areas, family doctors are trained to deliver babies. We have a federal policy that provides 52 weeks of parental leave, up to 35 weeks may be taken by one parent. Claimants receive up to 55% of their salaries, and some employers top that benefit up, to over 90%. Licensed childcare costs around $10 per child daily. We are nothing like the US. I had twins, extensive specialized care, 10-day hospital stay post delivery, never saw a bill.
Brava! Thank you for telling it like it is. Until our country CARES about women, babies, children, and youth, it will be very hard to expect an increase in birth rates. We are a backwards country in this regard, as your data shows. Thanks for always bringing the evidence to the table.
Though I suppose the birthrate will increase despite all that, once they make birth control illegal.
This needs to be on the front page of major newspapers and the lead story on the evening news. Eloquent and heart felt. We have all been there in some way.
The planet does NOT need more babies. Autocrats do. Ask yourself why. Worker bees and canon fodder are two reasons that come to mind … Human population thru time here https://youtu.be/vJ5p3pZlBi4?feature=shared
It isn't quite that simple. The economy itself needs more people to keep expanding and to provide elder care as the ratio of elders to working people remains stubbornly high in a nonexpanding population. I agree emphatically that we need to reduce human population, but we have to invent systems to deal with the fallout gracefully to avoid economic collapse and widespread destitution.
it's past time that we developed sn economy that was not dependent on population growth.
I agree. "...deal with the fallout gracefully to avoid economic collapse" about covers it.
I can think of a helpful solution. Allow refugees / immigrants from overpopulated areas to enter gainful employment here. Oh wait …
That can provide temporary mitigation in the short term, but it leaves us with the fundamental problem, that our economy must continue to grow or it will fail.
Respectfully, I think our economy should focus on sustainability. Not growth. Same with population.
I agree. Please reread, with emphasis on the word "problem". The fact that the economy and the population must grow is a problem that must be solved. Importing people from overcrowded places is a temporary solution at best.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sustainable+v+growth+economy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#cobssid=s
Thank you for sharing your personal story. I think its so helpful to know how policies impact people's personal lives, even those of us with privilege.
I suspect that women who would have a baby for the $5,000 will be women who are poorer, less educated, and who need immediate cash without considering the future costs of health care and raising a child.
To be fair, I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that women might choose to have a baby in order to get cash. Rather, I’m pretty sure the argument is that women want to have children, or more children, but are deterred by the cost, and $5K helps with a tiny fraction of that cost. Of course it’s not enough!!But the idea that women (especially poor, less educated women) have children in order to receive benefits is simply wrong and related to the damaging “welfare queen” myth.
The title could have been, “Birthrates are Falling, Economics Explains Why $5,000 Won’t Stop It”.
You tapped into many of the key factors why so many cannot (and don’t want to) have children.
https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/CRCinfographic2.jpg
I just googled around to find this infographic from the USDA: estimates $233K to raise a child born in 2015 not including college. So a child born in 2025 must be over $300K (and add another $100K-$200K if you’re contributing to the cost of college) 🤯 I gave birth last year and $5K didn’t cover the out-of-pocket delivery cost.
Yes, childcare is expensive. REALLY expensive. But one of my motivators for not having a third child is that college is even more expensive.
I think the cost of a college education has to be factored into one of the reasons why some people choose to have smaller families. It was definitely part of our thought process.
It is practically untenable right now to have two children in child care AND have two working parents. Even if your children are elementary school age, summer camp programs are also ridiculously expensive.
The parenting groups always have complaints about parents who send sick kids to school because of exposing other kids to illness. That's valid, BUT most people don't have enough sick time to be able to stay home every time their child has a sniffle or an upset stomach.
If I have two kids and they tag-team some illness (as we know they do), and then if I catch it, then you could be looking at 5 or 6 work days lost... and that's for ONE cold that goes through your house. That could be your allotment of sick time for the year.
So, I never blame the parent for sending a kid to school sick. I am so fortunate to have a robust village, but it's still a challenge under that circumstance, so I can't even imagine what it would be for someone who doesn't have as much support.
It's society. We need to provide more support to working parents. Give them paid sick time. Give them flexibility. Figure out how to subsidize childcare, summer camp, and higher education.
Make it work. I would have loved to have a third kid, but the logistics are insane.
Adding... I am so sorry for your fertility struggles and your loss. I've been there, too, and it's heartbreaking. Even after you're able to create the family you always dreamed of, the loss always feels raw. 💔
I was unable to carry to term due to a uterine malformation. What helps me is realizing that our own pregnancies not going to term left a bit more room and reduced pollution levels for other species compared to having those pregnancies be successful. There are still times when i think of what might have been, but it helps me to know what our loss allows to exist. I guess in a way it becomes a gift to the world, and a gift which is difficult can be more meaningful. Maybe that will help you, too, Missy.
Should a declining birth rate be "fixed"? Our economic system is based on continual growth. That is not sustainable. The "carrying capacity" of the earth is not infinite + has been passed in some regions. My biggest contribution to reducing my carbon footprint is by not having children. As a retired RN, Thank you for enumerating the dangers of pregnancy. I think many men don't realize the dangers.
Starting with your personal story sets a wonderful example of how science and story work together. I am so glad you had good support through your early period of losses. And, of course, glad you have two children. I read your every post and learn from content and tone. Thank you.
A quick history lesson, the Germans had the Cross of Honor of the German Mother in the late 1930s and early 1940s for mothers that had four or more children. History may not repeat itself here, but it certainly rhymes.