Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 7 pgs -- but haven't people been saying this for generations? Don't know how our kids will ever get married, buy a house, have kids bc it's sooooo expensive now. And yet every generation manages.

And yet the birth rate has dropped significantly.

And how do you know that's bc of expenses rather than just lesser interest in having babies?

My friends and I LOVE babies..but how can we pay student loans, $2K/mo RENT , $2K daycare with men who are mamma's boys and not willing to grow up?
Young women are expected to make equal financial contributions , be excited to work F/T and then come home and do 95% of childcare and housework with little/no help from anyone, and go to the gym or run marathons with DH, and then be ready for sex at a moment's notice.

It's NOT the lack of interest in having babies, its the LACK OF RESOURCES (financial, physical, emotional, etc) that are affecting the birthrate.

Anonymous wrote:
College is too expensive. Expectations are too high in urban areas in terms of activities, enrichment etc.

We better figure it out because we are below replacement age reproduction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is several days old, but some of the commenters have echoed similar sentiments in this thread. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fertility-rate-decline-united-states.html#commentsContainer

One comment in particular stood out:

"In short, many people of both sexes of prime childbearing age are not having children right now because they cannot afford all of the Big Four (housing, student loan payments, healthcare, daycare) at the same time, those that ARE having kids because they are making enough to make those four expenses bearable are only having one or two, and those who can afford to have three or more are not because they are working so many hours that they are too damn tired to even consider adding another crying baby to the mix."

This. Expectations for parents have increased--in terms of time and money. People graduate from college with more in student loans (because tuition has outpaced inflation for years). Housing is more expensive. Daycare is expensive. And there is little societal support in terms of healthcare costs, parental leave and sick leave, child care costs, etc. If we were really worried about people having more babies, we'd have universal health care, affordable quality child care, and guaranteed parental leave. We aren't worried, or at least not worried enough to do anything to make it easier for people to have more kids. We just demand that parents (especially mothers) sacrifice more and more time and money, and berate them for being selfish when they don't or aren't able to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful not to presume that things in the vast majority of the country are as expensive as they are in DC and its inner suburbs.

Yes, but that recent study just came out that showed that young people aren't buying homes and are choosing to rent instead and they aren't having kids either. What was it, something like a 30% drop in the birth rate? I'll look for the link. That wasn't just a local story, but America as a whole.

Of the 25-35 year olds I know, less than a handful are homeowners. The rest are renters. A small few even rent with another couple so they can afford a nicer house. Only two couples have kids and the one couple is only planning on having one kid, that's it. Too expensive.

The absolute # of annual births isn't a good measure for the "birth rate".

The total fertility rate is a better measure, and it hasn't changed much in a couple of decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+total+fertlity+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Better measure of what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful not to presume that things in the vast majority of the country are as expensive as they are in DC and its inner suburbs.

Yes, but that recent study just came out that showed that young people aren't buying homes and are choosing to rent instead and they aren't having kids either. What was it, something like a 30% drop in the birth rate? I'll look for the link. That wasn't just a local story, but America as a whole.

Of the 25-35 year olds I know, less than a handful are homeowners. The rest are renters. A small few even rent with another couple so they can afford a nicer house. Only two couples have kids and the one couple is only planning on having one kid, that's it. Too expensive.

The absolute # of annual births isn't a good measure for the "birth rate".

The total fertility rate is a better measure, and it hasn't changed much in a couple of decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+total+fertlity+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

How many people are having babies. Lots of hand wtinging but nothing to worry about.

Better measure of what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful not to presume that things in the vast majority of the country are as expensive as they are in DC and its inner suburbs.

Yes, but that recent study just came out that showed that young people aren't buying homes and are choosing to rent instead and they aren't having kids either. What was it, something like a 30% drop in the birth rate? I'll look for the link. That wasn't just a local story, but America as a whole.

Of the 25-35 year olds I know, less than a handful are homeowners. The rest are renters. A small few even rent with another couple so they can afford a nicer house. Only two couples have kids and the one couple is only planning on having one kid, that's it. Too expensive.

The absolute # of annual births isn't a good measure for the "birth rate".

The total fertility rate is a better measure, and it hasn't changed much in a couple of decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+total+fertlity+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful not to presume that things in the vast majority of the country are as expensive as they are in DC and its inner suburbs.

Yes, but that recent study just came out that showed that young people aren't buying homes and are choosing to rent instead and they aren't having kids either. What was it, something like a 30% drop in the birth rate? I'll look for the link. That wasn't just a local story, but America as a whole.

Of the 25-35 year olds I know, less than a handful are homeowners. The rest are renters. A small few even rent with another couple so they can afford a nicer house. Only two couples have kids and the one couple is only planning on having one kid, that's it. Too expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite is when the government says we should let in more immigrants to up our birthrate because our citizens aren't having enough children. Citizen here- I'd have more children if I had maternity leave or daycare costs weren't so high. Maybe the federal government should work on the needs of existing citizens before criticizing us for not having children.

CLOSE THE BORDER. Make our own babies. Word.

Anonymous wrote:I love how people talk about living further out or living in a two bedroom
I live in a place where a two bedroom goes for 800k and basically that is what you will pay for a small house in the suburbs. It isn't sustainable. The worst part is, I would love to move to West Virginia but my child requires a real hospital (like Boston Children's or Hopkins) and my dh is tied to major cities. I am tired of old people talking about young people whining since my father retired after 30 years working with a full pension over 100k and my mother never worked. That is no longer possible given pensions are gone and with our loans means we will work forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is several days old, but some of the commenters have echoed similar sentiments in this thread. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fertility-rate-decline-united-states.html#commentsContainer

One comment in particular stood out:

"In short, many people of both sexes of prime childbearing age are not having children right now because they cannot afford all of the Big Four (housing, student loan payments, healthcare, daycare) at the same time, those that ARE having kids because they are making enough to make those four expenses bearable are only having one or two, and those who can afford to have three or more are not because they are working so many hours that they are too damn tired to even consider adding another crying baby to the mix."

This. Expectations for parents have increased--in terms of time and money. People graduate from college with more in student loans (because tuition has outpaced inflation for years). Housing is more expensive. Daycare is expensive. And there is little societal support in terms of healthcare costs, parental leave and sick leave, child care costs, etc. If we were really worried about people having more babies, we'd have universal health care, affordable quality child care, and guaranteed parental leave. We aren't worried, or at least not worried enough to do anything to make it easier for people to have more kids. We just demand that parents (especially mothers) sacrifice more and more time and money, and berate them for being selfish when they don't or aren't able to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my friend group I am one of the only ones who has kids (33) but I have like 4 friends who are pregnant right now. I was just early. It definitely kicks in. Home ownership is a little more delayed but people are also slowly moving in that direction. Three friends have bought in the last few years.

My DH purchased his first house when he was 31 with some help from his parents. We got married and lived in that house and just bought a new one. But we did leave DC to get a bigger house closer to a metro area than we could have gotten in dc.

I think people are moving towards traditional families, they just don't start as early as they do in parts of the country outside the big metro areas.

Exactly this, from a fellow 33 year old. I always think of this when I read a hand-wringing article about millenials not having kids. I think they are, they're just doing it later and probably having fewer. Like you, my social group is mostly starting to have kids right now and there is a bit of a baby boom, which I expect to really take off over the next few years. With home ownership, it seems like most are still renting, with the idea that they'll make it work in a smaller apartment while kids are young and will enjoy the urban lifestyle until they have to think about schools. A lot of my friends are continuing to rent places that are probably a bit below what they would really like in terms of space, but that are affordable enough that they can save for a downpayment on a house. Then they'll move. So, basically what my parents did in the 80s, just about 5-8 years behind their schedule.

Anonymous wrote:My favorite is when the government says we should let in more immigrants to up our birthrate because our citizens aren't having enough children. Citizen here- I'd have more children if I had maternity leave or daycare costs weren't so high. Maybe the federal government should work on the needs of existing citizens before criticizing us for not having children.

Anonymous wrote:This article is several days old, but some of the commenters have echoed similar sentiments in this thread. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fertility-rate-decline-united-states.html#commentsContainer

One comment in particular stood out:

"In short, many people of both sexes of prime childbearing age are not having children right now because they cannot afford all of the Big Four (housing, student loan payments, healthcare, daycare) at the same time, those that ARE having kids because they are making enough to make those four expenses bearable are only having one or two, and those who can afford to have three or more are not because they are working so many hours that they are too damn tired to even consider adding another crying baby to the mix."