What does the current pro-baby push mean for you?

Would $5,000 change your mind about having a baby?

Fertility rates are falling all over the world. Leaders of many countries, from the U.S. to Europe and Asia, worry that we will soon have too few workers and too many old people needing care. As a result, the pronatalism movement, which promotes childbearing, is growing.

Anyone who has found themselves surrounded by people who keep asking when you’re going to have a baby has met the babies-are-great-and-everyone-has-to-have-some crowd, but now we’re hearing it from our governments, too.

In the U.S., the birthrate has fallen to 1.6 births per woman, below the 2.1 needed to sustain a stable population. Many countries are offering incentives to encourage couples to have more babies. Here in the U.S. under the Trump administration, we’re hearing similar conversations.

In April, President Trump said, “I want to be the fertilization president.” Father of five himself, he has done his part.

Vice President J.D. Vance, father of three, and famous for his childless cat lady comments, said at a March for Life in January, “I want more babies in the United States of America.”

Elon Musk, said to have fathered 14 children, has called low birth rates “a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.”

The Trump administration has talked about awarding $5,000 for each baby born. His administration has discussed tax breaks for parents, financial help with IVF, and even a medal for mothers of six or more children. No mention of the fathers. No mention of people who might not be equipped to be good parents.

As a baby boomer who grew up hearing that we needed to stop having so many babies because overpopulation was killing the world, this blows my mind.

I’m not in the baby game anymore, but I’m pretty sure none of these so-called incentives or the words of our current leaders would have made any difference for me. It was the circumstances of my own personal life that made me childless, not anything Uncle Sam might do or say. I’m sure it’s the same for other non-parents.

Over and over, I’m hearing that young couples can’t afford to have children, due to the estimated $300,000 it costs to raise a child, the daunting cost of childcare, and the high cost of owning a home suitable for raising children. It takes two incomes to support a family these days, but if both parents work full-time, who has time to take care of the kids?

The pronatalists seem unaware of the umpteen legitimate and often sad reasons why someone might not have children. What about people struggling with infertility, people whose partners are unable or unwilling, people who don’t have partners, or people who are dealing with physical or emotional illnesses that force them to abandon their plans to have children?

What about people who are working so hard to stay financially afloat that they can’t even think about babies? What about people who are giving everything to their careers and just don’t have the time or energy to raise children? What about those who look at our world and don’t want to subject children to what’s coming, whether it’s wars, climate change, or a civilization run by AI?

Some conservatives blame feminism and women in the workplace for the decreasing birth rate. They recommend a return to the old model of Dad at work and Mom at home taking care of the family. Is that even financially possible anymore? Do we really want women who enjoy their careers to step back into the 1950s when they had no rights and few opportunities?

Oops, my politics are showing. But we do already have a lot of people in this world. Look at the traffic in any major city during commute times. Do we really need to worry that older folks outnumber young ones? It’s a concern, sure, but is having more babies the solution?

Would a $5,000 bonus, tax breaks or a Mommy Medal make any difference in your childless status? What would it take? Is there anything the government can offer that would change your situation?

If your partner has been unwilling to parent, would any of these things make him or her change their mind?

Are your family and friends talking about the need for more babies?

This post seems to be all questions. I don’t have the answers. I only know that I entered the world during the 1950s baby boom, ran into roadblocks with my two husbands, and came out the other side childless. The government had nothing at all to do with it.

What do you think? I welcome your comments.


You might be interested in my recent “Can I Do It Alone?” Substack post about buying a home. How can anyone afford it these days? Are we doomed to rent forever? Check it out at https://suelick.substack.com/p/does-being-alone-mean-you-cant-own.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Is the Declining Birth Rate a Real Problem?

Simone and Malcolm Collins have six kids and are hoping for ten, each produced by in vitro fertilization and delivered by C-section, because they believe the U.S. is heading for a crisis if people don’t start having more kids. 

A Washington Post article on the couple reports that the average fertility rate in the United States has not been above the 2.1 children per couple replacement rate since 2007, according to World Bank data. “Currently, no country in the developed world, barring Israel, has a fertility rate above replacement level, and, based on U.N. projections, by the end of the century, almost every country will have a shrinking population.”

They are not the only ones concerned that in the not-too-distant future, we will have empty schools and overflowing nursing homes with not enough people to do the work needed to run the world. The Collinses join a growing group of people, mostly firmly on the red side of politics, who decry the tendency to have fewer children as selfish and wrong. Today’s young people just want sex with no responsibilities, they cry. They play around until they’re too old to have babies. 

This, of course, ignores the many reasons people may not have children, including infertility, illness, lack of a willing or able partner, choice, and a wide range of situations that fall somewhere in-between.

Those favoring more baby-making include Vice President J.D. Vance, famous for his comments about childless cat ladies. “I want more babies in the United States of America,” Vance said at the March for Life on Jan. 24, in his first public speech as vice president. The Collinses are hoping to become part of a national “pronatalist task force.”

It’s a big change from the 20th century cry that our growing population would lead to disaster. Having too many people would destroy the land, and overcrowding would make life unlivable. Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb was required reading when I was in school. Now, people are reading Empty Planet, about how our shrinking population is going to lead to big trouble.

Population growth has always been a cyclical thing.

One of my great grandmothers had 13 children. Another had seven. It was what people did back when most women saw few life choices beyond motherhood or the convent. Birth control and abortion were not easily accessible. If you had sex, you had children. 

Before the advances of modern medicine with its vaccines and antibiotics, many babies didn’t survive to adulthood, so it made sense to have more. I don’t know if any of my ancestors’ children died young. Everyone who knew them is gone now. But it seems likely.

My grandmothers each had two, plus one miscarriage each. Don’t ask me how they limited it. Who thinks about grandparents having sex?

My own parents married right after World War II, the height of the baby boom. With the war over, the world looked bright and shiny, the men had VA loans and GI bill money, and jobs were plentiful. It only took one income to buy a house and raise a family. So, they did. Two kids, sometimes three. My parents used condoms; my brother found them when he was snooping around. 

Values were different in those days. While married couples were expected to procreate and the only ones who didn’t were physically unable to, my parents made it clear pregnancy outside of marriage would RUIN YOUR LIFE. Girls who got themselves “in trouble” were shuffled off to a distant aunt or a home for unwed mothers to have their babies and give them up for adoption. Now, nearly half of babies are born to single mothers, and nobody cares. 

You’d think that would lead to more babies, but there are other factors. About the time I lost my virginity, birth control and abortion were becoming legal and obtainable. Women were moving into the workforce, demanding equal opportunities with men. Divorce became more common, sometimes leading to people marrying people who had already had their children and didn’t want anymore. 

It became quite possible for women to survive on their own without marriage and for couples to decide maybe they wouldn’t have kids. 

Fast forward to the grandchildren of the baby boomers. The birth rate has plummeted for many reasons. Young people are so busy finishing their education and building their careers they don’t get around to considering children until it’s too late. It costs so much to purchase a home they don’t know how they can possibly afford to raise families. Marriages may not last, the economy may implode, wars are happening, people are shooting children in the schools, and the climate is going nuts. Plus, no one can afford daycare.

In view of recent events, when so many people working at what seemed to be long-lasting government jobs are suddenly fired without notice, severance pay, or options for future employment, a lot of people are worried. If you’re not even sure you can support yourself, how can you support children? 

All of this leads me to wonder what will happen with today’s young people. How many will never have children because it just seems impossible? Will we see a new baby boom as the Maga wave washes away abortion rights and maybe goes after birth control next, as women and non-traditional couples see their equality fading away?

Or will the trend keep heading downward? Will people without children stop being the exception, the odd ones in the room who don’t have baby pictures to show? 

Is this all a lot of stewing about nothing? People will always have sex. Sex leads to babies, except when the body says no or we use some form of birth control. Contraception might become more expensive or more complicated to get, but it will be there. If you’re in a partnership where one wants to have children and the other doesn’t, changes in laws and availability may lead to more arguments but probably not to more babies. 

Nor will couples go back to the “Leave it to Beaver” lifestyle where the woman tends the home and children while the man earns the money. Nobody can afford it, and most women want their lives to include more than motherhood.

What do you think? Have you seen the attitude toward having children change? In what way? Do concerns about world population affect your decision in any way? What do you think it will be like twenty years from now?

Additional Reading

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

Simone and Malcolm Collins want to make America procreate again – The Washington Post

Falling birth rates, why it is happening and how governments are trying to reverse the trend – Michigan Journal of Economics

Why birth rates are falling, and why that’s not a bad thing | Popular Science

**************************

The Childless Elderwomen are having another online Fireside Chat on Saturday, March 29 at 1 p.m. PDT. The topic this time: “Eldering in a Time of Collapse.” I have to miss this one, but the rowdy “Nomo Crones” (nomo for Not-Mother) are sure to have some interesting things to say on this topic. Find out more and register at https://gateway-women.com/gateway-elderwomen.

If you enjoy the Childless by Marriage blog, you might want to visit my Substack, “Can I Do It Alone?” at https://suelick.substack.com. Many of the readers there have never had children. 

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Book review: The Baby Matrix

The Baby Matrix: Why Freeing Our Minds from Outmoded Thinking About Parenthood & Reproduction Will Create a BetterWorld by Laura Carroll, Live True Books, 2012.

Laura Carroll, who previously published Families of Two, about couples living happily childfree, has put together an absolute encyclopedia about why the “pronatalist” viewpoint that tells us that everyone should have children is no longer valid. We don’t all need to have children, especially in a world suffering from overpopulation, she says. Although I disagree with some of her points, I have to admire this well-written and deeply researched book that I will keep handy as a reference from now on. Carroll challenges common assumptions such as the idea that people need to have children to be fulfilled, mature, happy, and cared for in their old age. Furthermore, she says that parenting should be a privilege for which people must prove they are qualified. People should be rewarded for not having kids instead of getting tax breaks for having them. Maybe, maybe not, but there is so much information here. Want to know how many childless women there are in Finland? It’s here. Want to know what sociology texts tell college students about marriage and children? It’s here.

Will this book help you if you’re in a childless-by-marriage situation? I don’t know. Carroll does not specifically say anything about couples where one wants children and the other is unable or unwilling to have them. But if it’s looking like you are probably not going to have kids, this book may make you feel a lot better about it.