Births Set Record in 2007 A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby “boomlet.” The 4,315,000 births in 2007, reported as “provisional” data by the National Center for Health Statistics, gives just a glimpse of what’s ahead in the nursery. “I can’t tell you anything about who’s having these babies, but it is an early look and there is an increase,” says federal demographer Stephanie Ventura. “It’s a milestone.” She says details about the mothers won’t be available until the fall, because all the agency has now is birth certificate data from state health departments. The last time the number was this high was in 1957, in the middle of the baby boom years; about 78 million Americans were born from 1946 to 1964. Demographers have been monitoring gradual increases in recent years; data for 2006, which won’t be made final until September, show a 3% increase over 2005. That’s the largest single-year increase since 1989. “I suspect this is the beginning of a new kind of baby boom, although it’s going to be nowhere near the baby boom of the 1950s or '60s,” says demographer Arthur Nelson of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “It will be sort of a boomlet.” To be considered a real boom, demographers say, the percentage increases would have to be much larger than the single-digit increases we’re seeing now. The last time there was talk of a boomlet was during the 1980s and '90s. Those babies were sometimes known as “Echo Boomers” and today are called Millennials or Generation Y. Nelson attributes the 2007 numbers to a “perfect storm” of factors: more immigrants having children, professional women who delayed childbearing until their 40s, and larger numbers of women in their 20s and 30s in the population, keeping the fertility rate high. The average number of births per woman was 2.1 in 2006, the highest since 1971. “We have three different phenomena around birth happening at the same time,” he says. But family demographer Ronald Rindfuss of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill says there is a bigger question looming than who’s having kids. “From the perspective of schools that have to educate these children, this is a real increase in the number of births and something they’re going to have to deal with,” he says. But it won’t be “the kind of shock that we saw at the beginning of the baby boom. In 1952 and '53, in many parts of the country, schools had to run double sessions. This is a gradual increase.”
Time to start thinking about population control?
Yahoo! We’re saving social security!
IronMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Time to start thinking about population control? 2.1 is perfect for maintenance. Below that and most gov’t start paying up for the boom-boom. I think in russia a woman gets something like 9k for a second baby. France, italy, australia, singapore, have gov’t programs providing incentives too. I’m pretty sure the US is one of the few industrialized countries w/ birth rate at replacement rate. Japan is really screwed, they are running out of young ppl and their xenophobic immigration policies don’t help.
Sometimes I’ve wondered how it would work if a limit of two births per mother was instituted on a global scale. Women who wanted more than two children could buy credits from mothers who were happy with none or one. In today’s world, this idea might sound ridiculous, but it might not sound so ridiculous in the world of the future.
IMHO, that would be a horrible idea. There are almost no countries w/ per capita GDP > 15k that have fertility rates above replacement- the economies in themselves create plenty of disincentives to control birth rates. In the developing world, there are higher rates, but the mortality rates are MUCH higher too. The overall world average has dropped almost 10% in the last 8 yrs, an I assume will continue to do so as long as development continues. (these stats are all from CIA factbook) Sample: in hong kong’s birth rate is an awesome 1/woman and 26.8% of the population will be aged 65 or more in 2033. Awesome right? I’m surprised to hear someone on CFA forum support government mandated family planning.
Infant mortality differs around the globe; you’ll need a risk adjusted child credit.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m surprised to hear someone on CFA forum support > government mandated family planning. Where did I support it? Or maybe your definition of “support” means the same as “wondered how it would work.” Also, did you see my sentence saying that it might make more sense in the world of the future? Future doesn’t have to mean five years from now. Did you ever read science fiction?
frisian: yeah- it was “it might not sound so ridiculous in the world of the future” that implied to me like we should be moving towards that direction. No big deal, I was just pointing out some facts since this is not the first time I’ve heard these sort of comments and I feel like there are trends and facts that are overwhelmed by population boom fears. Sorry if it came across as a personal attack. And yes, I’ve read science fiction but in my experience they typically seem to warn against “big brother” policies, no condone them right??
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IMHO, that would be a horrible idea. There are > almost no countries w/ per capita GDP > 15k that > have fertility rates above replacement- the > economies in themselves create plenty of > disincentives to control birth rates. In the > developing world, there are higher rates, but the > mortality rates are MUCH higher too. The overall > world average has dropped almost 10% in the last 8 > yrs, an I assume will continue to do so as long as > development continues. (these stats are all from > CIA factbook) Sample: in hong kong’s birth rate is > an awesome 1/woman and 26.8% of the population > will be aged 65 or more in 2033. Awesome right? > > I’m surprised to hear someone on CFA forum support > government mandated family planning. At some point, we’re not going to have the resources to support this continued growing population. And no, we’re not going to develop MARS in the next 1000 years so that’s not going to help.
>"There are > almost no countries w/ per capita GDP > 15k that > have fertility rates above replacement- Yes well I’ve done my part with 4. What’s wrong with the rest of you slackers? If you wouldn’t spend so much time on AF, we wouldn’t be having this problem.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yes, I’ve read science fiction but in my > experience they typically seem to warn against > “big brother” policies, no condone them right?? The Earth will be around, whether humans are on it or not, for several billion years. Sometimes I wonder how long humans will be on it, and how the humans of the distant future will have to manage their resources and deal with their environment, which will be very different. It is very possible humans will face an extinction that is not brought about by some self-inflicted cataclysmic event, but by the slow, self-inflicted degradation of their resources / environment. I find these daydreams interesting and disturbing, and I have sympathy for our descendants because they will inherit problems that their ancestors were too lazy to prevent. This should be enough to tell you how I’m voting in November. Book recommendation: “Collapse,” by Jared Diamond.
IronMan Wrote: > At some point, we’re not going to have the > resources to support this continued growing > population. seriously??? Did you read my posts? I don’t support population growth, all I’m saying is that there is statistical evidence showing that currently, the trend is actually a population decline and that its spurred by free market economic development… eg my “The overall world average has dropped almost 10% in the last 8 yrs” statement. Although the # of births may be up- the trend is still falling as current #'s are do to momentum and their being a high portion of ppl in prime child bearing years. The results of the lower fertility rates have a delay, as we are currently seeing in western europe and parts of asia. To explain… India’s birth rate is less than 50% of where it was half a century ago, but their will still be plenty of kids bc the ones having the kids were born during the high fertility rate period; 20 years from now however, there will be half as many would be parents having half as many kids…
Even if the birth rate declines, the world’s population will still increase. I think we’re going to have a pop of 9 billion soon. What happens when we hit 15bill?
IronMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if the birth rate declines, the world’s > population will still increase. I think we’re > going to have a pop of 9 billion soon. What > happens when we hit 15bill? You are right, but in the long run it will. What is the alternative to lowering birth rates? I support proposals to decrease our burden, but believe simple economic development is the best way. Its already happening and *according to projections* we should begin to see results around 2050, when population will peak. Here are some interesting figures… Year Demographic event Population (billions) 2005 Crude death rate starts rise (from 9.0 per 1000) 6.45 2025 Fertility falls to replacement (and keeps fallling) 7.85 2075 Crude death and birth rates intersect (at 11.4); 9.22 population reaches maximum 2105 Crude birth rate falls to minimum (at 10.7) 9.00 2115 Crude death rate reaches maximum (at 12.3); 8.86 growth rate at miminum (-.15% in 2105-2120) 2155 Fertility rises to replacement (and stays there) 8.47 2175 Crude death and birth rates intersect again (at 11.1) 8.43 2225 Fertility effects on growth have disappeared 8.62 This is a process that will take years
So long as people have differences of opinion around the world, we will control our population through war. As countries develop, they will become more focused on the same goals as those who have replacement rates now and will eventually just replace as well. Basically, if you’re with us, then 2 kids per family, if you’re not, you can have 10 children, but 8 are going to die or not receive their ‘fair share’ of world resources so it will equal 2 in the end.
its all market based. think about how much north americans waste every day and how much inefficiency we have b/c of our land mass and living standards. once everything becomes expensive enough for us to care about conservation, we’ll slow our consumption as poor people will as well. globalization is brilliant as it makes everyone susceptable to rarity and conserve over time and those who drive globalization (western economies) will always stay ahead b/c of it. we’ll never have a popuation problem as things around us react. not just our markets and prices, but organisms. if we were to live in extremely confined areas, we will produce more disease and transfer disease much easier thereby increasing the rate of infection and death. i can’t wait for the days of ‘soylent green’
there is a really awesome paper I read once on how over sterilization/ cleanliness in the developed world is creating rising rates of many autoimmune diseases like IBS, Chrons, asthma, that rarely encountered in the developing world. Something dealing w/ the fact that since our systems have no pesky parasites to attack, they will attack out guts and lungs instead. ironic…
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its all market based. think about how much north > americans waste every day and how much > inefficiency we have b/c of our land mass and > living standards. once everything becomes > expensive enough for us to care about > conservation, we’ll slow our consumption as poor > people will as well. globalization is brilliant as > it makes everyone susceptable to rarity and > conserve over time and those who drive > globalization (western economies) will always stay > ahead b/c of it. we’ll never have a popuation > problem as things around us react. not just our > markets and prices, but organisms. if we were to > live in extremely confined areas, we will produce > more disease and transfer disease much easier > thereby increasing the rate of infection and > death. > > i can’t wait for the days of ‘soylent green’ Live in extremely confined areas and die of disease. Well shucks, that doesn’t sound very pleasant. Any other ideas?
breakthrough: we could create condoms that actually feel good…