Kidding Oneself

In generations prior to the Boomers about 10% of the population over the age of 65 had no biological offspring. For Boomers the portion is closer to 20%. In each subsequent generation the trend toward childlessness has intensified. For the first time ever in the US more than 50% of women at age 30 are childless – or “childfree” as some prefer, though each term arguably has judgmental connotations. So, while in a minority among Boomers, I am not rare in my dotage in having no kids. (My household actually is more complicated than that as those who know me are aware, but that is a separate matter.) Were I concerned about family legacy (I’m not) my 11 first cousins with a couple exceptions have been sufficiently prolific to take care of that. Neither my paternal nor maternal family names are at risk of vanishing.
 
For the most part the near-steady (with a few minor blips) decline in fertility in the entire developed world since 1965 has been voluntary. The fertility rate (the average expected lifetime number of offspring per woman) in the US is currently 1.6, the lowest it ever has been. In the absence of immigration a rate of 2.1 is necessary to keep the population from declining. Some countries – famously Japan – already are in decline. In the US, UK, Canada, and a handful of other magnet countries, immigration more than covers the gap, but one still hears concerns about a shrinking upcoming pool of workers and taxpayers to fund future pension and social welfare obligations for an aging population. One also often hears demands to encourage a higher birthrate through such interventions as government funded childcare and lengthy legally required paid parental leaves. These policies may or may not have merits on their own, but, despite what their advocates frequently say (based on dubious year to year data blips of hundredths of a point in this nation or that), there is not good evidence they affect fertility. Many European countries have exactly those policies, yet there is no discernable pattern between them and fertility rates. (Sweden’s rate, for example, is 1.6 – the same as the US.) Local cultural factors are more important. Some countries (e.g. Finland, Denmark, Poland, Russia) simply pay parents to have children though they too remain well below replacement rate. Hungary has an interesting approach; the government will lend 25,000 euros to couples; if they have two children within six years they don’t have to pay the loan back. Italy (fertility rate 1.3) is expanding a similar program.
 
In truth, the economic cost of raising children in developed counties is far in excess of even the most generous social welfare program currently in existence, which partly explains why they have such little effect. The USDA calculates that it on average takes $289,000 to raise a child to age 17. Send the kid to college and add a hundred grand. A plethora of magazine articles have fretted about these figures in recent years. Yet, these scary numbers are not the primary reason people are forgoing parenthood. In a recent Pew study financial concerns deterred only 17% of childless adults under 40 from having kids. The most common reason given: “Don’t want to.”

I can relate. I didn’t want to. Perhaps we should fuss less about all this. There are 8 billion people in the world and (despite Elon Musk’s concerns) no immediate danger they will go extinct – from low fertility rates anyway. Besides, it must be better for the kids to have parents who want them. If a decline in working age taxpayers someday puts a strain on public spending, perhaps we just need to adjust our spending priorities. (Also, a tighter job market generally means higher real wages, which are not a bad thing.) When I was born there were 180,000,000 fewer people in the US than there are today (332,000,000 in 2022). No one thought the country was underpopulated back then. If the net (albeit unlikely) result of individuals making free decisions today is eventually to return us to 1952 numbers, so be it.

 

Kids – from Bye Bye Birdie