“Teen mothers are increasing!” has been a common “everything is getting worse!” my whole life – until recent years, when “fertility is down!” has replaced it. Like this CBS News headline: “Experts sound the alarm on declining birth rates among younger generations: “It’s a crisis”.”
Once upon a long-ago message board, I had an argument with a Christian sociologist who was arguing that more and more Black teens were becoming mothers. I pointed out that his claim just isn’t true – the percentage of babies born to Black teen mothers had gone up, but the actual number of Black teens giving birth were going down. (The discrepancy was because the number of post-teenage Black women giving birth was going down a bit faster.)
Much to my surprise, he became very angry with me, growled that I was missing the whole point, and quit the argument. It’s one of these disconnects that can happen easily with text-only disagreements: I thought we were having a fairly dispassionate discussion about fertility statistics, but it turned out we were having a passionate disagreement about… I’m still not sure.
There is a real argument that we need an increase in young workers to keep our economy and demographics healthy. The solution for that shouldn’t be nagging at young women to have more babies, but to allow in more immigrants.)
TRANSCRIPT OF CARTOON
This cartoon has four panels, plus a tiny kicker panel under the bottom of the cartoon. Each of the four panels show the same two people taking on a sidewalk. The first is a woman with short black hair, wearing an open yellow shirt over a light orange shirt, and knee-length purple shorts. The second is a young man with reddish brown hair parted in the middle, dressed more conservatively in a button-down men’s shirt tucked into blue pants. Let’s call these two SHORTS and PANTS.
PANEL 1
Shorts is walking down the sidewalk when she’s startled by Pants, who is waving his arms around and yelling.
PANTS: Teenagers having babies is a crisis! A catastrophe!
PANEL 2
The two of them talk calmly, Shorts making a “just explaining things” hand gesture, and Pants looking a little surprised and worrying his fingers.
SHORTS: Actually, the birthrate among teens has been plummeting for years.
PANTS: Really?
PANEL 3
A shot from over Pants’ shoulder, as he peers at the screen of Shorts’ smartphone, which she’s holding out to show him.
On screen, we are looking at a website with the “CDC” logo, and the headline “TEEN BIRTH RATE REACHES ANOTHER HISTORIC LOW.”
PANTS: Hmmm
PANEL 4
Pants rears back, hands clasped to his head, a huge expression of panic on his face. Shorts, still holding up her smartphone, rolls her eyes.
PANTS: Gasp! The birthrate is down! This is a CRISIS! A CATASTROPHE!
TINY KICKER PANEL UNDER THE BOTTOM OF THE CARTOON.
Pants is talking to Barry (the cartoonist). Pants looks stern, with his arms crossed.
PANTS: Whatever the birthrate is, people need to know women are doing it wrong!
CHICKEN FAT WATCH
In ye olden days, when cartoonists stuck in irrelevant details for fun, the term for that was “chicken fat.” Nowadays we call this “easter eggs.” Apparently the term for this must always relate to poultry.
PANEL 1: A shifty-looking bunny, smoking a cigarette, is peering out from behind a tree.
A newspaper littering the ground, with a masthead saying “Daily Background,” has the headline “Cartoonist Subsidy Bill Passes!” and a subheadline saying “‘About damn time’ –Nation.” The photo accompanying the story shows a happy cartoonist who looks kinda like me holding a huge bag with $ written on the bag.
A scrap of paper on the ground says “Good people read this.” So there, don’t go saying I’ve never said anything nice about you.
A rat is napping in the gutter. One of the rat’s paws rests on an open bottle with a label saying “X,” but using the logo of the company that used to be Twitter.
PANEL 2: On the side of the tree, a realistically drawn squirrel is staring face-to-face with Woodstock from “Peanuts.”
PANEL 3: On the CDC’s website, there are two smaller stories at the bottom of the smartphone screen. The first says “Poll: Americans want Scientists & Government to Pretend Covid is Over.” with the subheadline “‘We don’t want to know. Anyway, what harm could it do?’ says public.”
The second story says “Study: Most Studies In Tiny Print Don’t Actually Exist.” And the subheadline says “Headlines like this one are just cartoonists making stuff up to fill in backgrounds.”
In the lower left corner of the panel, a little man, with blue skin and a purple mohawk, sits on the panel border grinning at the reader. He has a sign which says “I’m not relevant.”
PANEL 4: A bird flying in the background is wearing an eyepatch.
PANELS 1, 2 and 4: In panel 1, the tattoo on Shorts’ forearm shows an unhappy young person with big hair. In panel 2, the same tattoo shows the person with shorter hair, some brow wrinkles, and a still sad expression. In panel 4, the tattoo person is now bald and old, but has a happy expression.
The Birth Rate is Always a Crisis | Patreon
I really like this one. Also, I laughed at the “studies don’t actually exist” headline.
Thanks! :#)
“Teen mothers are increasing!” has been a common “everything is getting worse!” my whole life – until recent years, when “fertility is down!” has replaced it.
I think these are two different enough conversations that blurring the lines because they happen to intersect at happening to women is probably a disservice.
The problem with teen pregnancy (or single motherhood, as another relevant example, which is on the increase) isn’t that a pregnancy is occurring, it’s who it’s happening to and the circumstances around them. Teen Pregnancy is massively disruptive, often an indicator for abuse, and derails people’s entire lives. Even if they have access to abortions and choose to abort, that’s traumatic and a preventable waste of medical resources.
It is a good thing that it, like abortion generally, even before the overturn of Roe v. Wade is on the decline, because it signals that all the work that we’ve done on education and supply of things like contraceptives has been, to some extent, effective.
I think the reason why our expectations are generally that it’s still a problem is because we’ve basically heard about it since our formative years, and we haven’t heard anything countervailing because it’s uncontroversial: I don’t think anyone is really rooting for teen pregnancy, and our media generally doesn’t inform so much as it enrages or frightens… Which is a topic all it’s own.
The declining birth rate however, is a problem. It might be a necessary one. I think, admittedly getting a little conspiratorial, to an extent it might even be a designed one. But it’s a problem because we have a system predicated on growth. And if that growth doesn’t happen, bad things start to happen as demand for goods and services increase alongside an aging population that retires without people ready to step into their places. There’s a conversation that balances sustainability and growth, environmentalism and production, labour and automation.
You touched on this: “There is a real argument that we need an increase in young workers to keep our economy and demographics healthy. The solution for that shouldn’t be nagging at young women to have more babies, but to allow in more immigrants.”
If done properly, I suppose that works. But I think that this treats the symptom without treating the root problem. We aren’t wired as a species to be genetic dead-enders. We are the legacy product of an absolutely prodigious amount of sex and reproduction, going all the way back in an unbroken chain to single-celled organisms.
This obviously isn’t to say that everyone needs to have kids. But something systemically and culturally has changed so drastically in developed nations that we don’t even have to institute a draconian single-child policy to keep our numbers down. I don’t think that’s healthy as a species, particularly if we believe that our standard of living is something developing nations should aspire to. I’d never heckle an individual woman for not having kids, but I think we need to try to understand why so many women are either unable to or choosing not to have kids and perhaps adjusting the system or somehow incentivizing motherhood to offset that.
It’s an extremely solvable problem right now for rich countries. Those immigrants you were complaining about in the other thread? They can work in stores and restaurants, take care of older people who need help, build houses, and start new businesses. These examples are not chosen at random: quite a lot of (most?) construction workers, nursing home attendants, service industry employees, and people starting new retail businesses (not sure about businesses overall) in New York are immigrants.
Anecdote alert: The most common reason I’ve heard is lack of preschool/daycare/other backup. So, more support for preschools and daycare–good preschools and daycares, that parents feel comfortable sending their kids to–is needed if you want the birth rate to go up. That means hiring a bunch of people to work with the kids and provide support for the people working with kids. Hmm…wonder where we can get them from?
@Corso: Malthus called he wants his argument back
Here’s the thing – if you believe that people tend to make the best decisions for themselves because they understand their own situations best, than low birth rates are not really a problem. Due to more widespread access to both family planning information and birth control, a larger fraction of the world than ever before can control their family size. Right now, worldwide, most people are deciding to have fewer children than their parents’ generation (even in low income parts of the world). Worldwide, the population is expected to stop growing in the 2080’s, which is not so far away.
I don’t think anyone is seriously worried about humans depopulating to extinction. I think people in rich countries are worried about 1) having their own grandchildren and 2) maintaining their standard of living. It will be a LOOONG time before there are not enough potential immigrants to support the lifestyle in rich countries, and hopefully by then we will no longer be relying on such a growth-dependent system for economic stability.
Pretty much worldwide, more kids means fewer resources per kid (parent time, material goods, enrichment opportunities). A larger population means more competition for entrance into various programs which have not tracked population growth in terms of available slots. In developed countries, improvements in equity mean that a larger fraction of the population has a chance at these programs, making opportunities for admission even more competitive. It seems perfectly rational to me to want to have fewer kids. Anecdotally, wealthy people seem to have larger families now, in a reversal of the pattern of the modern age.
At some point in the future, it seems likely that people will make the rational decision for themselves that they want more children, and population will stabilize and/or rise again, but probably (hopefully) not as explosively as in the 20th century.
@Dianne
Citation please? I don’t think that’s correct.
But regardless: My point in the other thread is that there is A Number of people we need, and a skillset we require, and pulling in a whole lot more people than what we have infrastructure for or pulling in a huge skills mismatch has consequences.
Take Springfield for example: Republicans are shit at messaging. I’m not defending the demonization of the Haitians: They didn’t ask to get dumped in a place that wasn’t prepared for them, and I don’t believe half the shit that’s been said about them. But their presence is pain point. Cultural differences aside, the Feds dropped 20,000 Haitian refugees on a community of 60,000 people. Without a corresponding amount of extra doctors, teachers, dentists, mechanics, plumbers or houses. To use your example: That’s like dropping 3 million unskilled laborers into New York. What do you think would happen? It’s a legitimate crisis: The people of Springfield are in distress because their community and infrastructure are bursting at the seams, and their concerns aren’t mitigated by their pets not actually being eaten.
And more to the idea that this helps the declining birth rates: Sure. Temporarily, but immigrants in America tend to assimilate relatively well, and their experiences tend towards the average after a generation or two. Without addressing the reasons why birthrates are low on average, we just become the place where family trees come to die.
Honestly… Not the worst plan I’ve heard of, I think there’d be some resistance on uptake, but sure, I agree that a childcare strategy is going to be a part of any real effort to look at this.
@Jane
Right…. But why are they doing it? Why are they controlling their family size, often at 0 kids?
If the answer is because they legitimately don’t want kids: Fine. But I wonder if we’ve devalued motherhood culturally. Motherhood used to be aspirational… And now I feel like it’s seen more like a sacrifice. Which… It might be, but it’s also necessary for the continuation of the species, and it feels like we’re shifting the burden of motherhood to immigrants because we can’t be bothered. Avvaaa brought up Malthus earlier, Kant might have something to say on this as well.
If the answer is because they need support, in terms of things like childcare or financially, I think we’re going to need to have those conversations, and frankly: I think this is one of the intersections where progressives and conservatives might inadvertently agree.
and
This is the other side of the argument, and I admit it’s persuasive: There’s probably something to be said for ZPG. If we’re going to do that though, we need a plan, because like I said: Our system is predicated on growth, and if that growth doesn’t happen, bad things happen. If we’re going to look at sustaining populations instead of growing them, we’re going to need to adjust. Which is a legitimate conversation, but one that I don’t think is happening.
No one knows how many Haitians have immigrated to Springfield. City officials had said “as many as 20,000” – it was an upper bound and frankly a guesstimate – but in the hands of popular discourse, it’s become the number. A lower bound would be around 8,000. The real number, which won’t ever be known unless someone does real research, is somewhere between. (I suspect the market is currently better for high estimates, since that makes a more exciting story.)
The government didn’t “drop” them there. The population in Springfield had been dropping for years; for whatever reason, young people born in Springfield don’t want to stay in Springfield as young adults. Adults seeking work moved out, and nearly no one was moving in. So housing was relatively affordable there.
Meanwhile, the city government, and the local chamber of commerce, worked hard to attract new businesses to locate in Springfield and (this part always surprises me, I’m a natural pessimist about stuff like this) it worked. They convinced a major Japanese auto parts company to open a new plant there, and a microchip maker, and others.
Word got around in the Haitian community that there were employers in Springfield who were desperate for reliable factory workers, and affordable housing. So Haitians moved to Springfield, much to the relief of the employers there, who asked their Haitian employees to spread the word that they were hiring.
There’s nothing in there that can at all rationally be described as the federal government dumping 20,000 immigrants on an unwilling town. This was set in motion by Springfield’s government, who purposely – and successfully – convinced employers to set up plants in Springfield. Then the employers purposely recruited legal workers, who chose to move there.
Yes, of course there are some growing pains when a community grows. It can take a while to expand schools and hospitals. But it’s not at all impossible. If someone made a good case that Springfield needs federal grants to expand capacities, I’m open to that idea.
But the fact is, hundreds of communities other than Springfield have gone through growth spurts before. Do you have any reason at all to believe that Springfield is incapable of doing that too? And if so, what’s your solution? Should we be opposed to local governments trying to attract employers? Or against employers trying to attract workers to open jobs? Should we just oppose towns growing?
And yes, there will always be some locals who hate the newcomers, ignoring how the newcomers have objectively made the town richer and increased the tax base. Ignoring that it’s much better to live in a growing community than a dying community. In the long run, do you think the schools would be better off with fewer students every year? Would the town be better off with the tax base doing nothing but shrinking? Why is this what Republicans seem to want?
I do think there are things that the Federal government could do to smooth transitions. Or, better yet, the state government, if the state government were run by competent people. The most obvious thing, I think, would be to find some way to offer the town of Springfield low-cost loans on an easy repayment schedule to build more capacity for schools, hospitals, and other needed infrastructure. Or even grants.
But that kind of potentially useful response is not what Republicans are asking for. What Republicans are doing is flat out spreading lies about what happened – lies that you seme to have accepted uncritically. And, of course, spreading disgusting racist lies about Haitians stealing and eating housepets (I’m grateful you’ve seen through those lies).
Edited to add: Everything I wrote above is pretty well known, except among Republicans. Here’s an article in a Springfield newspaper which covers a lot. The article also talks about the role played by staffing companies, which is controversial; some people say staffing companies have helped some workers cross the border.
Even if true – and staffing companies deny it – I don’t think that’s illegal.
A government investigation said it “revealed the possibility” that this had happened, which to me sounds like they don’t want to say they have no evidence.
There are companies that exist specifically to help foreign workers get through all the paperwork to legally work in the US. Some of them even provide transportation to the job site. This is an actual industry because – hold onto your hats for this one – businesses need more employees than can be found in the good old US of A and will pay other businesses to help get them the employees they need. Imagine that! An industry to help immigrants enter the country legally to fill open jobs. What a dystopia it is in which we live.
I must admit that I was going more off of my impression than off of data. I wasn’t able to find data for NYC in particular, but US level data is available citation
Note that foreign born people are more likely to be employed in healthcare support, construction, agriculture, food preparation and service, and transportation. Native born people are more likely to be managers and business people.
In New York, we call that “Tuesday”. See https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-city-immigrants_n_4475197
And that’s not even counting the refugees from severe weather events in the southern part of the US and midwesterners hoping to get rich.
That’s a good point. I should have not only said that it’s legal, I should also have said that there’s nothing wrong with it.
But, in this case, it seems like the workers were sourced from within the USA.
This is a worldwide phenomenon. All regions in the world are converging on ~2 or fewer children per woman. The world projects to hit replacement (2.1 children per woman) in 2050 (soon!), with the last region (Africa) projected to get there in 2090. I hardly think that worldwide culture is uniformly devaluing motherhood. Nor are all of these regions destinations for immigrants.
I can say that I spent way more time with my kids (though I work full time) than either parent did with me (though my mother stayed home with us). I hardly think that worldwide culture is uniformly devaluing motherhood. I have and had less than no interest in being a stay at home parent. If enabling women to not be stuck at home = culture that devalues motherhood, I am all for it. And what about fatherhood? Parenting in a couple is a two-person decision.
Giving people more options means that fewer will dedicate themselves to raising large families. This is anecdotal, but the very few people I know who had more than 3 siblings almost universally wanted either 0 or 1 kids after seeing/experiencing parentification of the older children. You’ll note that only sexual predator Josh Duggar of the famously huge Duggar family has a really large family, even though they all marry young…
Parenthood is a sacrifice. Parents give up their time, freedom and energy to their kids. It should be one willingly taken.
“If the answer is because they legitimately don’t want kids: Fine. But I wonder if we’ve devalued motherhood culturally.”
Is there any particular reason to believe it´s Option B, not Option A?