During a class discussion a while ago, the subject of birthrate (especially America's in comparison to other countries') was brought up. The book notes that on average,
American women have 2.1 children, which is more than the number that women in many other industrialized nations tend to have. The other day, I was reading an article that mentions America's birthrate being on the decline for the third year in a row, and currently standing at 1.9 children per woman. The author attributes this decrease in births to the struggling economy, which apparently has discouraged teens especially from having children at this point. Claire Gordon, who penned the article, points out the benefits and costs of these lower numbers of births to both the present and future economic situation in America. She also mentions that demographers have noted that a birthrate of 2.1 is the minimum "necessary for a generation to replace itself." Assuming this assertion is true, what does it mean for America's future? Gordon talks about Social Security and retirement, but also points out the potential good that this low birthrate could mean. She believes that women are just postponing getting pregnant, and will eventually populate the country with children and the money it takes to care for them. I just wonder what more of the short and long-term effects of this birthrate decline could be (and, even after the economy rights itself, will the birthrate really return to its previous, generation-sustaining level?).
American women have 2.1 children, which is more than the number that women in many other industrialized nations tend to have. The other day, I was reading an article that mentions America's birthrate being on the decline for the third year in a row, and currently standing at 1.9 children per woman. The author attributes this decrease in births to the struggling economy, which apparently has discouraged teens especially from having children at this point. Claire Gordon, who penned the article, points out the benefits and costs of these lower numbers of births to both the present and future economic situation in America. She also mentions that demographers have noted that a birthrate of 2.1 is the minimum "necessary for a generation to replace itself." Assuming this assertion is true, what does it mean for America's future? Gordon talks about Social Security and retirement, but also points out the potential good that this low birthrate could mean. She believes that women are just postponing getting pregnant, and will eventually populate the country with children and the money it takes to care for them. I just wonder what more of the short and long-term effects of this birthrate decline could be (and, even after the economy rights itself, will the birthrate really return to its previous, generation-sustaining level?).
"America's Declining Birthrate Could Be Good For The Economy"
No comments:
Post a Comment