Thread: Against the trend, U.S. births way up

Originally Posted by miguelina

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

Fertility rates often rise among immigrants who leave their homelands for a better life.

Maybe so mama can collect more welfare benefits, food stamps, rent assistance, etc. There are some illegal mamas in my town that have no job, but rather depend on benefits to their jackpot babies for a living.

You are right ReggieMay! Most of them also claim to be single moms, with the babies daddies not living with them. They get more $$$ if daddy's aren't there. Anyone receiving freebies (AMericans and otherwise) is encouraged to do this by the ways the entitlements are structured. Get more $$$ for doing less than nothing. A$$ backward way of doing things.

There is a welfare to work program here in Ca but it does not apply to anyone that english is not their primary language. The benefit tree is an place for EVERY anchor til they are 18 as long as there is no mandated assimilation in place.

We're paying them to colonize us, while keeping our own people unemployed.

If we didn't have at least 25 million Americans unemployed or involuntarily underemployed, an immigration policy which brings in almost everyone from only one country might be short sighted, but at least it would be understandable. As it is, we're having to learn their language, just to get enry level jobs in our own country. It's gone too far.
************************************************** *********************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Economic hard times - can't afford diversionary entertainment - equals more babies. Happens every time. Need to factor that in.

The date of the article above appears to be 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080115/ap_on_re_us/baby_boomlet

Would be 2008/01/15

Here is an article from 2010.

U.S. Birth Rate Sets Record, Hits Lowest Level In A Century

First Posted: 08-27-10 01:01 PM |
Updated: 08-27-10 09:02 PM
By Marilynn Marchione, AP Medical Writer:

Forget the Dow and the GDP. Here's the latest economic indicator: The U.S. birth rate has fallen to its lowest level in at least a century as many people apparently decided they couldn't afford more mouths to feed.

The birth rate dropped for the second year in a row since the recession began in 2007. Births fell 2.6 percent last year even as the population grew, numbers released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics show.

"It's a good-sized decline for one year. Every month is showing a decline from the year before," said Stephanie Ventura, the demographer who oversaw the report.

The birth rate, which takes into account changes in the population, fell to 13.5 births for every 1,000 people last year. That's down from 14.3 in 2007 and way down from 30 in 1909, when it was common for people to have big families.

The situation is a striking turnabout from 2007, when more babies were born in the United States than any other year in the nation's history. The recession began that fall, dragging down stocks, jobs and births.

"When the economy is bad and people are uncomfortable about their financial future, they tend to postpone having children. We saw that in the Great Depression the 1930s and we're seeing that in the Great Recession today," said Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University.

"It could take a few years to turn this around," he added.

The birth rate dipped below 20 per 1,000 people in 1932 and did not rise above that level until the early 1940s. Recent recessions, in 1981-82, 1990-91 and 2001, all were followed by small dips in the birth rate, according to CDC figures.

The Great Recession "is definitely a deterrent" to people having more children, said Dr. Michael Cabbad, chief of maternal health at the Brooklyn Hospital Center, where births declined from about 2,800 in 2008 to about 2,500 last year.

Even Cabbad's son said he'd like to have more children "if his business plan works out."

Nearly half of low- and middle-income women surveyed a year ago by the Guttmacher Institute said they wanted to delay pregnancy or limit the number of children they have because of money concerns. Half of those women also said the recession made them more focused on contraceptive use. Guttmacher researches reproductive health issues.

Besides finances, experts said a decline in immigration to the United States also may be pushing births down.

The downward trend invites worrisome comparisons to Japan and its "lost decade" of economic stagnation in the 1990s, which was accompanied by very low birth rates. Births in Japan fell 2 percent in 2009 after a slight rise in 2008.

Not so in Britain, where the population took its biggest jump in almost half a century last year and the fertility rate is at its highest level since 1973. France's birth rate also has been rising; Germany's birth rate is lower but rising as well.

Cherlin said the U.S. birth rate "is still higher than the birth rate in many wealthy countries and we also have many immigrants entering the country. So we do not need to be worried yet about a birth dearth" that would crimp the nation's ability to take care of its growing elderly population.

The new U.S. report is a rough count of births from states. It estimates there were 4,136,000 births in 2009, down from a year ago's estimate of 4,247,000 in 2008 and more than 4.3 million in 2007.

The report does not give details on trends in different age groups. That will come next spring and will give a clearer picture who is and is not having children, Ventura said.

Last spring's report, on births in 2008, showed an overall drop but a surprising rise in births to women over 40, who may have felt they were running out of time to have children and didn't want to delay despite the bad economy.

Women who postpone having children because of careers also may find they have trouble conceiving, said Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington-based demographic research group.

"For some of those women, they're going to find themselves in their mid-40s where it's going to be hard to have the number of children they want," he said.

Heather Atherton is nearing that mark. The Sacramento, Calif., mom, who turns 36 next month, started a home-based public relations business after her daughter was born in 2003. She and her husband upgraded to a larger home in 2005 and planned on having a second child not long afterward. Then the recession hit, drying up her husband's sales commissions and leaving them owing more on their home than it is worth. A second child seemed too risky financially.

"However, we just recently decided that it's time to stop waiting and just go for it early next year and let the chips fall where they may," she said. "We can't allow the recession to dictate the size of our family. We just need to move forward with our lives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 97131.html

RELATED

Foreign born population nearly triples since 1980

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-222501-census.html

The U.S. population is 308,745,538; Texas gets 4 new seats

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-222309-census.html

Originally Posted by TakingBackSoCal

Originally Posted by CCUSA

I had 3 too Rockfish and Cayla99! Sounds like a trend!

Three here as well.

Well... I got ya beat. I had 4! Youngest is near 25...

Originally Posted by miguelina

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

Fertility rates often rise among immigrants who leave their homelands for a better life.

Maybe so mama can collect more welfare benefits, food stamps, rent assistance, etc. There are some illegal mamas in my town that have no job, but rather depend on benefits to their jackpot babies for a living.

You are right ReggieMay! Most of them also claim to be single moms, with the babies daddies not living with them. They get more $$$ if daddy's aren't there. Anyone receiving freebies (AMericans and otherwise) is encouraged to do this by the ways the entitlements are structured. Get more $$$ for doing less than nothing. A$$ backward way of doing things.

The baby's daddy doesn't even have to live outside of the house, just as long as they are not married.