
US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level - happy-go-lucky
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low
======
mhneu
For decades, the US birth rate has been held up by immigration. American
values have been to regard the country as a nation of immigrants, who not only
act as a source of youthful workers, but also have more kids than Americans
who have been here longer. So the US has avoided workforce aging, as has
happened in parts of Europe and especially Japan, through immigration.

With the recent reduction in immigration, accelerated by the party in power
now, the US is going to face the same low birth rate problems as other
advanced economies.

And the people leading immigration suppression in the US know this.

Paul Ryan in December: _This is going to be the new economic challenge for
America: people. Baby boomers are retiring—I did my part, but we need to have
higher birth rates in this country,” Ryan told reporters on Thursday. Ryan,
the Wisconsin Republican and current Speaker of the House, “did [his] part” by
having three children._ [http://www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-
more-kids-7...](http://www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-more-
kids-749328)

It's also worth adding: the political environment in the US for decades means
that one party wants to make it hard for two-parent working families to have
more kids (because those two-parent families tend to vote for the other party,
and one-earner families have kids that vote for their party). That's a big
part of the reason the US has poor child care and maternity leave support --
because those policies are a political football in the US.

~~~
nostromo
I don't see the value in large numbers of unskilled workers entering the US
every year.

With a potentially large wave of automation coming, the US shouldn't straddled
itself with lots of unemployable drivers, farm workers, etc.

I hope we can move to a much more sensible immigration system, similar to
Canada's, for example.

~~~
mieseratte
> I hope we can move to a much more sensible immigration system, similar to
> Canada's, for example.

We have a decent immigration system in terms of getting the right kinds of
advanced folks.

The problem is we are also unwilling to do what needs to be done to stem the
tide of unskilled illegal labor that flows into the nation.

~~~
rubicon33
The biggest counter argument I hear, regularly, is that the "tide" of illegal
labor you speak of is NECESSARY.

Who will pick strawberries? Who will clean your hotel room? Etc.

It's the classic who will do "X" dirty job argument.

~~~
mieseratte
> Who will pick strawberries? Who will clean your hotel room? Etc.

There is a seasonal / migrant worker visa for this reason. For instance, near
me, Kiawah Island's resorts are partly staffed with Jamaican guest workers
because the seasonal nature of the job. In high school I worked as a bagger at
a grocery store on another island that was incredibly seasonal, so we had
Russian guest workers during the summers.

Some jobs probably just wouldn't get done without either A) a wage increase or
B) guest workers, e.g. particularly brutal agricultural tasks. We can allow
the necessary workforce in for these tasks if need be.

> It's the classic who will do "X" dirty job argument.

The poor.

Having grown up in an area with a large Hispanic influx, they did. I currently
live in an area with little to no Hispanics, but we do have a lot of poor
African-Americans. They do the jobs I grew up seeing Central and South
Americans work.

The problem with the illegal influx from southern nations, is they can also
crowd out native blue collar markets by working for less, and are willing to
live an impoverished standard of living. We should not be forsaking our own
countrymen so we can get cheap lawn care from a wage-slave underclass living
in third-world conditions on American soil.

~~~
tobylane
The seasonal worker visa is talked about for Brexit. The people who need the
workers, the fruit farmers, say it's far too much effort and isn't workable.

The poor here just aren't willing to do that work at that price. The
supermarkets aren't willing to pay more for the produce. Something has to give
and in both countries I'm sure it's going to be the rules on visas.

------
0xB31B1B
Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are
making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. We as a
society need to re-examine the causes of rising costs of essentials so
reproduction is no longer financially infeasible.

~~~
coldtea
> _Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People
> are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford._

Well, people in the US made way more children when they made very few money,
and lived 10 together in tiny houses and apartments.

And they still do in the developing world.

So it can't be just costs.

~~~
dagw
_So it can 't be just costs._

Our expected spending on children has also grown dramatically. For example
back then there was an expectation that someone would always stay home an look
after the kids, now we expect them to go to day care. Back then 4 kids sharing
a room their entire childhood was normal, now each kid is expected to get
their own room. Back then kids where expected to entertain themselves, now we
expect them to attend all sorts of after school activities. Back then they
where expected to either go straight to work after high school or pay their
own way through college either by working or scholarships, now the parents are
expected to help pay for college, and so on.

Basically it's not that having kids per se is more expensive, it's that
providing kids with the quality of life we've come to be expected to provide
them with is expensive.

~~~
magduf
The other thing everyone is forgetting is how much TIME kids require; it's not
just about the money. As someone else in this thread said, poor people get
their entertainment from their families and communities, whereas richer people
have other ways to entertain themselves (travel, etc.). Raising kids is a huge
time-sink; you never get any time to yourself, you never get to do anything
that isn't kid-friendly, etc. It's a huge lifestyle change if you're used to
being able to take weekend trips, go to fancy restaurants, go on international
travel, etc.

------
jurassic
As half of a thirty somethings couple that wants children but can’t afford the
financial implications in the Bay Area, it seems pretty clear to me why
fertility is down.

~~~
jacquesm
Well, you could of course move but in the end it is mostly about priorities.

~~~
wetpaws
Going from expensive area with good job market to slightly less expensive area
with little to no job market. Rrright.

~~~
jacquesm
You could move to a much less expensive area with a reasonable job market.
It's not all black-and-white, people stare themselves blind on what their take
home pay is but quality of life is at least as important. I would not move to
the valley for any kind of money given that it would stop me from having the
life that I would like to live.

It's not as if SV is the only place in the world with a job market. Though if
you're early 20's and have nothing to lose in the world then it might be a
good spot to start simply because what you make there in a couple of years can
buy you a home cash somewhere else if you play it smart and keep your costs
_way_ down.

~~~
fossuser
You honestly don't even have to keep your costs way down. If you just live
with roommates and don't actively try and spend a ton of money you'll be able
to save enough in seven to ten years to probably buy a house somewhere else
(or at least cover 60% of it).

The trick is that reestablishing an entire friend network and getting
comfortable in an area takes time. The first year or two in a place is usually
more difficult and I suspect this gets even harder as you get older and people
are paired off.

If you live in the bay area in your 20s with roommates and then pick up and
move to Austin or Boulder at 30 it's probably hard to make friends (though I'd
guess dating is probably a lot easier).

------
nostromo
This makes me super happy and super scared.

Happy because we have plenty of people on Earth and in the US. We don't need
more people.

Scared because so many of our economic structures assume infinite population
growth.

~~~
lisper
We can change our economic structures. We can't change the fact that
exponential growth is unsustainable. So this way at least there is hope.

~~~
mhneu
Replacement level fertility is by definition non-exponential (or if you
prefer, has an exponent of 1.) A reasonable number of macroeconomists would be
ok with replacement-level fertility. The economics get really bad when the
birth rate falls below replacement though - you get fewer workers supporting
more retirees, which has the bad consequences you can see now in Japan.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
What are the bad consequences in Japan besides flat growth?

~~~
ddebernardy
Didn't flat growth in Japan happen much earlier than this problem? My memory
might not serve me well, but my own understanding is their flat growth is a
hangover related to their debt bubble popping in the late 1980s - with the bad
debt still getting purged out of the system nowadays.

------
parentanonymous
For what it's worth, I've got two kids and live in a 2bd. apartment in SF.
I'll never be able to afford a house in the city, but I like my job and I'm
not willing to commute from the outermost burbs I could afford. And it's
totally worth it.

Yes, having kids brings some limitations with it, but it's also one of the
very best experiences that one can have.

I hear a lot of young professionals express fear that they can't afford "a big
enough house" or that "the city isn't good for kids." Here's the thing, the
kids do not care. They don't think they they live in a small apartment. They
just think their home is next door to the bakery that sells their favorite
oatmeal cookies. That they can walk to beautiful parks and libraries and
schools. It's just normal to them, they're happy, and they aren't comparing
themselves to the 50's era stereotypes of what "lifestyle" is "healthy" for
kids.

SF is a great place for kids. All the parks and rec programs are so much fun
and so cheap, the kids here have access to the abundant cultural and
educational resources that aren't available at any price in most of the world.

I say this not because anyone should be convinced to have a kid. But, if you
want to have children and the thing that is holding you back is a
materialistic fear that you won't be able to "provide a good enough life" for
them, or that the city "won't be a good place for them," just know that isn't
necessarily true.

The best way I know how to express this for young urban professionals is to
compare it to world travel. You probably know people from your home town who
have never left, and how their world view is kind of small. It's not that they
need to move away from home, but you know from experience how much traveling
has opened your mind and enriched your life, and you wish they would choose to
have that experience too. If they say to you "oh, but travel is so expensive,"
you know that isn't necessarily true, you can have an amazing travel
experience on a dime if you want to.

Parenting is a lot like that. What kids care about is having parents that love
them and care about them. If you can do that part, they won't care too much
about the rest.

~~~
jarjoura
I think city living in SF is super great for people who can afford the extra
cost. Right now you have 2 kids in a 2 bedroom, and at some point that is
going to be pretty cramped for everyone. Also the number of families that put
a strain on the system is pretty stressful. For example, getting a slot into
the school lottery for Lowell High is crazy competitive.

Yet, I agree, nothing beats walking them to day care and then to work and
having a dog to play with in a park a few blocks away. Having access to some
of the best food in the world and lots of evening family friendly events is
quite a perk and a dream.

Another thing though that I hear a lot, people who choose to live in the
subburbs here also find the "unique" culture of SF a bit much for a kid to get
exposed to so early. A bit too gritty and real lol, but I applaud you for
being so open.

------
xevb3k
This is something that seems to happen in most countries when they reach a
certain stage of development (see Japan, Korea).

I think it related to the general availability of contraception and that the
work involved in caring for children has increased, while the number of carers
has decreased.

The trend toward migration means grandparents are often not nearby to help
care for kids. This coupled with the fact that in most cases both parents need
to work increases the difficulty in raising kids dramatically.

I’ve also noticed that, while grandparents are not around to help, fathers
often still don’t involve themselves in childcare.

All this coupled with how expensive kids are means that if you can satisfy
yourself with one child, people often do. Enough that it depresses the birth
rate significantly in any case.

~~~
tathougies
> fathers often still don’t involve themselves in childcare.

Are people really living in marriages where the husband does nothing? This is
a genuine question. My family is Indian, and I grew up in America, but from
what I remember, my mom and dad spent most of their time taking care of my
brother and I, whether that be by cooking, paying bills, cleaning the house,
taking care of the car, driving us around, etc. Our grandparents lived in
India, and only immigrated permanently in our teenage years, and both my
parents worked (my mother even went to college). Indian culture is not known
for an equal sharing of responsibilities, but that was my experience in my
family. What are these husbands doing, if not taking care of their families?
Watching TV? What? How is doing nothing productive for your family considered
societally acceptable for men? As a man, I've always felt it was a societal
imperative that everything I do directly benefit my wife and children.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Yes. A friend of mine is very much an uninvolved father. His wife handles all
the child-rearing and housekeeping, while he plays videogames, often while
drinking. I've mentioned to him that he should probably be more involved, but
it's not my place or responsibility to tell him he's failing as a husband and
father. In his defence, he's still a better father than his own father ever
was, but that's not exactly a high bar, and he knows it.

Frankly, I don't know why his wife puts up with him.

~~~
xevb3k
I’m not sure... I get your point and understand how you feel. But having seen
it a few times, and the effect it has on the wife and child, I can’t be
friends with people who act like this anymore.

I just feel like I’m normalizing their actions by acting like it’s no big
deal. I think one of the reasons that this kind of attitude amongst fathers
continues, is because it’s seen as somewhat normal and socially acceptable.

~~~
tathougies
I totally agree. A man who sits at home all day (or even after work), drinks,
and plays video games, is not someone who is going to make me a better person,
in any respect. I'd cut my losses. The last thing anyone needs is to be
associated with a loser.

------
smaddox
> _" The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971"_

And yet population has grown by 120 million [1]. There are a lot of problems
in the world, but I don't think low fertility rates is one of them.

[http://www.multpl.com/united-states-
population/table](http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table)

~~~
gxs
I think that's due to immigration - not birthrates.

~~~
cjbprime
There's also a lag associated with fertility rate decreases.

Even if the children-per-woman rate has decreased sharply, the population can
still be increasing for decades afterwards, because there are still a sharply
higher absolute number of women in the relatively-lower-rate birthing
generation, thanks to the rate having been higher in the past when they were
born.

Not caring about lower fertility rates because you don't realize that there's
a temporary lag keeping the population increase high seems very careless.

~~~
smaddox
Far better for the population to decrease naturally by choice, than due to
wars over limited resources.

------
pasbesoin
My personal, anecdotal observation. This is the continuing legacy of the baby
boomers. A counter-point, opposite of their parents, the so-named greatest
generation.

Come to the height of their careers in the 70's through the 90's. The decades
of self. With Michael Douglas's character's "Greed is good!" as a centerpoint.

They're where the wealth has gone. Leaving following generations without the
security to settle down and raise families.

Everyone wanted something for nothing. Well, you turned something into
nothing. Sold your own kids and grandkids out.

Speaking generally.

~~~
tzahola
So, what’s the plan when the boomer menace is over in 15-20 years? Where will
their wealth go when they die?

~~~
pasbesoin
A lot of it appears to be going to chronic, late, and end-stage medical care.

And it's not the aides providing 24/7 coverage, who are getting rich. (Having
been dealing increasingly with this, recently with some friends. Most of the
aides are immigrants who are making relatively low hourly wages. The bills,
however, can (well) exceed the full household expenses for a staunchly middle-
class family of four. And many eventual estates have to pay those until
they're more or less broke, when the government picks up.)

I need to reduce my commenting. This here is anecdote. And I'm pretty steamed
about what I've been watching happen in the U.S., for the past 3+ decades.

~~~
user5994461
I believe you described the US case.

In Europe with the free healthcare, the elderly can be kept on care for a very
long time, all covered by the taxes of the younger workers. This is gonna
become a huge hole in the budget.

------
CalRobert
Sample of one (well, two) here but my wife and I decided it was now or never
as we hit our mid thirties and decided to have a kid. She still has mountains
of student debt precluding homeownership though which means it's unlikely
we'll have two.

We also waited until the kid could be something other than American though, so
we're outliers.

~~~
CalRobert
Then again, the lower the birthrate of wealthy high-emission folks, the
greater the chance civilization survives another century,

~~~
paulcole
I agree with you but this is a super controversial opinion on HN. People here
seem to really like to ignore the environment cost of a child.

------
vibrant
This is driven by a very simple thing - pension funds and insurance.

Back in the day (and in poor countries with no pension funds) people knew that
they had to have children because otherwise nobody would support them when
they were old and they'd die. Right now people are confident that they will
get a pension when they are old, so there is no reason for them to have kids.

They consider children as an inconvenience, miss out on the marvel of
parenthood, and basically make the nation die off gradually.

Plus of course - lowering wages and women having to work, thus making having a
child a huge problem.

~~~
stevenwoo
What workers are you thinking of that have a pension besides certain
federal/state/municipal employees.

The average or median worker in the United States cannot depend on a pension,
it is impractical for the vast majority of Americans to consider what we
commonly think of as retirement and stopping work.
[http://time.com/money/4258451/retirement-savings-
survey/](http://time.com/money/4258451/retirement-savings-survey/)

~~~
casefields
I work in film and television. We have pensions.

------
Viker
Interesting...

How many people here would say that they have actively decided not to have
children? I am just curious.

~~~
notheguyouthink
Wife and I decided ages ago to not have children. I had a vascetomy when I was
~25. I think our reasons differ, and mine are confused, but it's very clear to
both of us that we never want children. Oddly, she liked being an aunt though,
so there is that.

~~~
matte_black
When you are an aunt or an uncle caring for nephews and nieces is super cheap,
and once you no longer get the same joy of spending time with them as they
grow older you can back off without guilt. Similar to grandparents.

At the end of the day, the kids go home with their own parents.

------
Symmetry
Huh, I did a blog post about this just last night. Basically, people's
personality has an impact on whether they have kids, personality is heritable,
fertility won't be low forever given current conditions but who knows how
conditions will change.

[http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2018/05/falling-
fert...](http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2018/05/falling-fertility-
rates-shouldnt-be.html)

~~~
Analemma_
> Basically, people's personality has an impact on whether they have kids,

Maybe you address in your post, but as stated this doesn't make a lot of
sense. Fertility is falling across _all_ demographics and in _all_ developed
countries and has been for decades – are you saying everybody everywhere has
experienced a personality shift over that time?

And while fertility probably does have _some_ genetic component, I think
that's a small piece of it compared to prevailing economic conditions (having
kids is friggin expensive and this generation is deeply in debt) and social
mores (whether there's powerful religions pressure to have kids). Genetics
neither explains this nor provides a way out of it.

~~~
rossdavidh
Well presumably until you get to a certain level of development, the only
personality trait that matters is whether you want to have sex or not, but
after that point (relatively recently in generational terms) other factors
matter. Kind of like how height is mostly determined by food availability,
until you get to a point when sufficient food is available for everyone, and
then genetic factors matter more.

------
rolandog
I'm no economist, but I've been mulling over some of the common problems the
majority of citizens of modern countries are all facing.

I think that most of them (low purchasing power, high cost of living, high
house prices) seem to stem from the effects of our collective activity and
lack of large-scale and long-term organization and planning; it doesn't help
that we've been lately -- as a society -- focused on optimizing for GDP, which
is as an indicator of how well a country's economy is faring.

I'd like to say my opinion, and would welcome any educated response, but I
fear a backlash or repercussion. This is something I've been thinking about in
terms of game theory, and though they may seem a bit crazy, I would invite
everyone to consider them before disregarding them as conspiracy theories.

I believe there is an interest in keeping the majority of people uneducated,
busy and plentiful: in essence almost everyone is easily replaceable, and the
majority of the population have to settle for meager wages.

However, in a scenario where people were to be educated and scarce, I posit
that inequality would tend to disappear as people would have a higher
bargaining power, a likelier scenario to organize or respond, and a higher
quality of life.

So, even if this hurts housing, healthcare and industries indirectly (less
infrastructure to be built, babies to be delivered and products to be sold),
I'm glad that fertility rates are below replacement level because this
indicates -- in my opinion -- that average quality of life will increase.

~~~
techsin101
Couldn't agree more

------
FlyingSideKick
I see this as a good thing. Hopefully by helping other countries implement
plans that engender educational and employment opportunities for women we can
finally hit “peak child” and begin to slowly shrink our global population over
time.

------
gregorymichael
What are the economic ramifications of fertility rate being below the
replacement level?

~~~
tabtab
There are also military ramifications. If we get into a big skirmish with
China, they will overwhelm us with soldiers and high-volume weapon
manufacturing capability.

~~~
jotm
I thought nukes solved that. What's the point of them if someone can overwhelm
you with soldiers...

------
matte_black
Can’t say I don’t see this as a good thing. Given how some people won’t be
able to survive in the post-automation future 50-100 years from now, the best
thing for them is probably to never be born.

~~~
jotm
Durr Durr but the next Einstein

~~~
matte_black
If we were serious about finding the next Einstein we would be attempting to
maximize the pairing of individuals who could produce such a person. This may
someday be feasible, as genetic testing and online dating begin to intersect,
but the time is not yet.

~~~
magduf
AFAIK, Einstein was not the product of a pair of super-geniuses. It doesn't
work that way.

Of course, you're not likely to get an Einstein if a bunch of uneducated
idiots breed either, but most really remarkable people like that come from
pretty "normal" parents, though admittedly usually from family backgrounds
that are at least middle-class, and not impoverished, and where they had good
opportunities and education.

If you want to increase your chances of making more Einsteins, there's two
things you have to do as a society: 1) minimize poverty, illiteracy, poor
education, etc., and 2) increase the birthrate (while making sure as many of
those kids as possible grow up in economically and emotionally stable homes).
You're not going to get Einsteins from a bunch of dirt-poor subsistence
farmers, nor from a tiny cabal of wealthy people.

------
otakucode
Almost like a rabidly anti-sex society resulting in people having
significantly less sex than at any point historically known might have some
sort of negative consequences, huh? I'm sure the rampant depression, anxiety,
and other things known to be a consequence of reduced sexual activity are all
caused by something else though. The fact you could start up the Youth Anti-
Sex League from Orwell's 1984 and no one would even bat an eye is probably
just a fluke. Carry on.

------
sixdimensional
Anybody have the statistics on infertility rates to compare? I'm specifically
interested in biological infertility, excluding people who choose not to have
children.

------
wokky
_" The decline in the rate from 2016 to 2017 was the largest single-year
decline since 2010," the CDC said ... Historically, the number of babies born
in the U.S. has gradually risen since a sharp decline in the early 1970s._

Particularly given the parallels, I'm surprised there's so little talk of the
political climate in connection with these episodes.

I expected this to happen.

------
circa
The beginning of "The Handmaid's Tale"

------
swyx
how much is attributable to a declining marriage rate? is there a well studied
ratio of marriage rate to fertility rate? maybe by breaking down the "funnel"
we can have a better discussion of causes.

------
Knufen
Both the American government and the rest of the western world should strive
toward policies rewarding birth instead of limiting it.

------
eric24234
UBI is the only way forward .

------
hateful
Under His Eye

------
Karishma1234
Not true at all. Turns out that the poor people who actually cant afford to
have kids are having more kids. Hispanic and Black growth is much higher than
whites and asians.

Asians with the highest income level have lowest birth rate.

Given that it is mostly whites who have been leading in STEM there is a high
chance that US will lose its competitive advantage in these fields.

~~~
maxk42
I wonder if the poor are having more children because they feel like they have
less to lose?

I desperately want to have kids and my girlfriend is on board, but she makes
next to nothing and I make quite a lot of money. I tried an online calculator
and if things go awry between us, I'll be paying her roughly a quarter of my
post-tax income for the next two decades here in California.

That's just too big a gamble for me. So even though I desperately want
children and I can afford them and everything would probably work out fine --
here I am, aging and childless while my girlfriend nears infertility because I
can't justify the math to myself.

~~~
robotrout
Right now, children is sort of theoretical for you. That's fine, as it's like
that for everybody.

Once you have them and have fallen in love with them, you'll find that their
happiness is worth working things out with their mother, rather than breaking
up. If you can't man up enough to put up with her shit (assuming there is any)
and you do break up, the money will be going to your kids, who you'll love,
and giving that money won't be as objectionable as you imagine.

For me, I used to break up with women over silly arguments that embarrass me
now to think about. Now, when such emotions surface, it always leads to me
thinking about my kids and what a break-up would do to them. When you have
kids, you're in a relationship with their mother and with them also. When
you're mad at her, you're still having fun with them, and that lets you work
through your issues with her, as their happiness includes her presence. The
same applies to her, if you're being an asshole for awhile. So breaking up
after kids is not as likely as you fear.

~~~
maxk42
I make a quarter million dollars.

No, that money certainly _won 't_ be going to my kids. It's utterly ridiculous
to pay that amount of money for child support for one child.

This is essentially incentivizing my partner to break up with me: "Hey <GF>,
if you dump him, you get a $60k check for the rest of your life for sitting on
your ass." Incidentally, this is far more than she has ever made.

~~~
robotrout
You are correct that it does not take $60K a year to raise a kid (or two or
three).

There has been a meme for a couple decades now, that kids are so expensive and
will cost millions of dollars to raise, etc. This meme is doubtless
responsible for much of the reduced birthrate.

You can spend as much or as little as you desire on kids. I grew up shopping
at Goodwill, but now I buy $40 shoes that my kids will wear for 6 months
before outgrowing. That's my choice, as there are cheaper new shoes and much
cheaper used shoes. Somebody else might buy their kids $120 shoes and complain
to their friends how expensive their kids are. It's a shame that people like
to promote this myth of the expense of kids.

If you can get over your trust issue with your GF, her not needing to give up
a high paying job and being able to be home with the kids is a win. She won't
feel like she's missing out on something and your kids get a much better
childhood.

~~~
maxk42
Being practical hardly constitutes a "trust issue". It's as if none of the
people criticizing me have a concept of relationships grounded in reality. It
wasn't the topic and I shouldn't have to defend my relationship here.

~~~
robotrout
Nope, you shouldn't have to. I really wasn't attacking you, but on the
contrary, was trying to be helpful, since you had expressed desire to have
kids, and then were deciding not to.

It seemed necessary for me to qualify my encouragement for you to not abandon
the idea of kids, on the condition that you could make yourself feel safe in
the relationship, since it seemed like you did not.

It just makes me sad to see successful people deciding not to have kids, given
the subject of this thread and given the very few number of my friends, my
wife's friends, my family, and my wife's family that had kids.

------
aglavine
People blame capitalism, Trump...It might be mysterious forces are working
here...World doesn't need more humans, and Nature seems to be adjusting to
that.

