How the modern U.S. family size is changing, in four charts and a map
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 months ago • 54 commentsBy: Aria Bendix and Joe Murphy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Families are smaller and people are waiting longer to have children than in years past, according to an NBC News analysis of data released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The U.S. teen birth rate hit a record low in 2019, the NCHS report shows, with fewer than 1.7 births per 100 teen girls ages 15 to 19. The teen birth rate has fallen sharply since 2007 amid a decadeslong pattern of decline, according to the report, but it's still higher than the rates in many other high-income countries.
A declining fertility rate
The number of live births per 100 women aged 15 to 44 in the United States
The overall fertility rate in the U.S. declined from 2015 to 2020, additional NCHS data shows, reaching a low of fewer than 6 births per 100 women ages 15 to 44. (The rate then rose 1% from 2020 to 2021, though the overall trend still faces downward.)
The U.S. birth rate — the number of births per 1,000 women — declined from 2018 to 2019 among women in their 20s and early 30s but increased among women ages 35 to 44, the report showed.
The data also revealed that from 2015 to 2019, 24 was the average age at which a woman gave birth to her first child, while the average man had his first at 27. In previous years, those averages were 23 for women and 25 for men.
Sociologists pointed to a few factors that may explain these trends. One is that contraception has become more reliable, while another is that people are getting married later in life, and most births in the U.S. still happen within marriage.
"People are waiting to have kids until they feel ready, they've got a good job, they feel mature enough to devote themselves to parenting, they feel like they're going to have a good partner," said Karen Benjamin Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Another possible — though less influential — factor is medically assisted reproduction techniques, such as in vitro fertilization, which are helping some people have kids at older ages (primarily those with high incomes or coverage of the service as a benefit through their employer).
On average, people in the U.S. are also choosing to have fewer children, according to the NCHS report: In 2018, the average woman had around one biological child, compared to more than three in 1960.
The size of the average U.S. family — defined as people related by birth, marriage or adoption who live together — is now around three people, down from almost four in 1960.
Sociologists suggested these trends may be attributed, in large part, to financial concerns.
"The economic downturn of 2007-2008 really made people go, 'Wow, having a kid is a big commitment and expensive,'" said Julia McQuillan, a sociology professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Guzzo said birth rates never fully recovered after the Great Recession, likely due to factors such as student loan debt, high housing prices and a shortage of full-time jobs. Child care costs and a lack of family leave may also lead people to postpone having kids or opt out of parenthood altogether, she said.
"The United States doesn't have paid family leave. We have a really shaky child care system, as the pandemic pointed out. We don't have sick leave for most people. So there's a lot of things to consider before you decide to have kids in this environment," Guzzo said.
Fertility rates vary by region, though: States in the central U.S. have higher rates than in other parts of the country.
However, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the new abortion restrictions that have followed in many states, could influence U.S. fertility trends in the future, according to Michael Rendall, director of the Maryland Population Research Center.
"It could be that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will act against the continued decline in birth rate," he said.
Tags
Who is online
28 visitors
There are way too many people right now. Any trend toward global zpg is good for the Earth and all of her inhabitants.
Not if you think things like social security and Medicare are good things.
The concept of economies continually expanding for ever and ever until the end of time is ridiculous and unsustainable.
Good thing our entire economy isn't premised on that than. I'm sure our mass Borrowing and entitlements built like a pyramid will all handle a shrinking economy and working base without collapsing.
When capitalism collapses all other creatures on the planet will rejoice!
"Other Creatures"...go by the "Survival of the Fittest" rules.
Even within their own species, they let the weak perish. Better for the clan, pride, etc.... to thrive !
Capitalism is dead. Murdered by Supply Side Economics.
Good riddance, eh?
I have 3 kids, none planned. I guess that makes me an over achiever.
I don't think any kid is ever really planned. When I got pregnant with the first I had been off the pill for a few months but wasn't expecting to get pregnant that quickly. The second one was totally unplanned but he was a nice pleasant surprise
Mine were totally planned. What was unplanned is having twins.... identical twins, but that was a pleasant surprise.
I got pregnant in my mid 40's which was unplanned (as the age might imply), but I lost the pregnancy in the 14th week.
I'm sorry for your loss. That had to be hard.
We thought about having a third one and there are times I regret we didn't have a third one, but I adore the two I have and am grateful
As were mine. After a decade of trying we were gifted with two sons, in whom we are well pleased.
Our heritage is with mixed races, mixed experiences, mixed expectations but with the commonality of wanting nothing but the best for our family. And that our children will take all our baggage, take it in stride, and do all they can to make this world a better, more accepting place should they be blessed with children of their own.
And that is the ‘American Dream’
Peace.
I got married with the understanding that I didn't want kids, but after the hook was set I had no choice. now I can't imagine life without them.
"There are way too many people right now. Any trend toward global zpg is good for the Earth and all of her inhabitants"
Strongly agree
That chart is showing what has happened to traditional American families. The millions of people illegally entering the country from the third world are still having large families and that is what will transform this country.
“…traditional American families…”
Define that if you please.
It doesn't exist in 2023 and probably hasn't since about 1990 or so. I raised a "nuclear family" meaning my husband and I replaced ourselves with 2 more people. We started a family in the mid 90's and it wasn't cheap then. I can't imagine what it's like today or maybe I can.
Vic,
The know-nothings would have said the same thing about both Italian and Irish immigrants, you do realize?
I would imagine that the ancestors of today's legal citizens were from shithole third-world countries, why else would they have left their country that was so great, so we are keeping up with the past.
More indigenous, Asian, PI's, brown and black people, the perfect America.
If it wasn't for immigration we would be in the same situation as China, South Korea, Japan and much of Europe.
That's because women will be forced to carry fetuses to term. May increase the fertility rate but what happens to all those unwanted children?
Same thing that's happened since the beginning of time. They get adopted. Or there parents change their mind once they hold the baby arrives, Some times its the other way around. Circumstances and feelings change. No ones feelings are locked into place. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority will grow up normally. .
Sean,
Abortion is as old as the western world. I see no reason why women should be forced into a pregnancy and deliver a child that they never wanted in the first place.
Hit me with a ticket. I should not have brought up this sticky subject.
I see No reason why a women should NOT "Force" a partner" to use protection, so she doesn't get pregnant with a child she doesn't want, nor do I know a reason why a "Partner" wouldn't force either themselves or the other, to have protection so the one they are "With" doesn't have a pregnancy neither of them "Want" in the first place !
Than convince everyone to support abortion until birth if that's what you want.
Under your rationale, if a woman decides at 8 months she doesn't want the child, "you can't see a reason" why she should be forced to deliver a child.
Nah... I don't mind drifting slightly off topic.
every time you mention abortion I hear thumping and smell mackerel...
I'm not clear on what you are trying to say? Are you saying that protection is on the individual and not their partner?
Nope.
Posting "either themselves or the other, and the words, neither of them" would mean ..... Both ?
Do you want to pay her for 24 hours a day for a month at overtime rates to support your rational? If not it should be no concern to anybody else
You have a unique way of taking things to the extreme, to try and make a point. Most women have abortions in the first 12 weeks.
No that is not my rationale and you know that from previous discussions and my post above.
Exactly!
Ok...this will get me that ticket...every time I bring up the subject the worst characters show up
See? The worst come charging in and then start making shit up!
HUH?
Well, that's not on you... and I wouldn't mind an honest discussion. I just don't like it when people know my position and then twist it.
I don't think it's possible to have an honest discussion anymore
Okay.
I'm pointing out the logic your argument rests on. If it's extreme, its because your argument is extreme.
So? You just said there's no reason a woman should has to deliver a baby if she doesn't want to. That applies equally at nine months at 4 weeks.
o that is not my rationale a
So you can think of a reason a woman should deliver a child she doesn't want.
What does that even mean?
[Deleted]
My argument is that abortion should be legal to a point and you know that.
Again, 10 years later, and I have never advocated for aborting babies, which is what a 9-month-old fetus is.
Yeah, pretty much after about 16 weeks, unless there is a danger to her health.
I know that's been your position, which is why your claim in 4.1.1 was worth commenting on. It's not consistent with that claim.
eah, pretty much after about 16 weeks, unless there is a danger to her health.
Okay, that's different than the absolutist position you took above.
Sean,
I didn't take an absolutionist opinion. You read something more into what I said, after years of always having the same position.
Don't you just love flimsy strawmen? I think I'll play Wicked Witch of the West today
That means those who want to force the woman to continue being pregnant when she does not want to could pay her 24 hours a day or they could tend tp their own business
I took what you wrote at face value. Your original statement that you can't even think of a reason why a women should ever have to give birth if they don't want to is the definition of an an absolutist opinion.
Peoples opinions change and the pro choice side has gotten very extreme, very fast. Its not shocking to think you've changed yours. . No limits abortion is quickly becoming the de facto democratic position. I doubt you'll ever see a Democratic nominee who publicly supports any limits on abortion ever again.
.
No, I don't think women have the right to an abortion up until birth.
why not?
I don't believe in the intentional taking of innocent human life.
Roe was 22 weeks. ST spouted a scenario that never legally existed.
It exists today.
Roe didn't prohibit any abortions.