A lead article for New York Times Friday told readers, “The Birthrate Is Plunging,” and “Some Say That’s a Good Thing.” It’s a take that’s oddly disconnected and dystopian, even for a media giant known for churning out pieces at odds with reality, but the real irony is that the Times piece provides more than enough evidence to prove that America’s birth dearth is a serious problem.
The Times does have an excuse for characterizing America’s fertility decline as a “good thing”: Ostensibly, it has to do with the collapse in teen birthrates, which have plummeted by more than two-thirds since 2007. One expert consulted by the Times called the birthrate decline “a success story,” presumably for this reason. Roger Severino, of The Heritage Foundation, noted that conservatives have never advocated for “more births at all costs,” and it’s fair to say that most conservatives, particularly Christians, would welcome a decline in teen births inasmuch as that decline was due to young Americans choosing to engage in less promiscuous sex. The mere decline may be a left-wing victory, but that does not make it a right-wing one.
Times reporters Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Adelson admit that “if the birthrate drops too far for too long, it could eventually present problems, as the country needs workers to support an aging population.” Unsurprisingly, they immediately suggest the solution of immigration and incuriously observe that the “issue has become politically sensitive,” but largely they present the birth dearth as the worry of the “political class” and conservatives who engage in “hand-wringing.”
But the problem is not insignificant, nor are its underlying causes, causes the Times references but apparently fails to take seriously: the rising median age of marriage, the smartphone as “a substitute for sex,” rampant use of “more reliable contraception,” economic difficulties, particularly related to housing, and delayed childbearing (the Times notes that “a woman in her early 40s is now more likely to give birth than a teenager”). Abortion goes unmentioned, but it weighs heavily in every discussion of collapsing birth rates, with more than 60 million unborn babies murdered in the United States since 1973.
The Times points to another potential driver of low birth rates, noting that “women in their early 20s are now almost as likely to be employed as men”; 20 years ago, men led by 10 percentage points. This factor may have more influence than might be expected, especially in light of a recent study that showed increased wages for men leading to higher fertility, while higher wages had the opposite effect for women.
Women’s desire for children is still there, the Times says, citing surveys before putting the average desired number of children at two, below the replacement rate of 2.1. But there is often a gap between the number of children women want and the number of children women have, meaning the goal of two may not be reached in many cases. Government incentives have largely proved ineffective in increasing birth rates, though there is evidence that a resurgence in religious devotion could lead to a corresponding resurgence in births.
But the birth-delaying young women Tavernise and Adelson sympathetically portray in their piece unwittingly highlight another barrier to a rebound in America’s birth rate: an unwillingness to embrace adulthood along with its hardships and responsibilities. Amid descriptions of financial concerns, difficult childhoods, and praiseworthy intentions, the women hint at deep cultural problems.
A 30-year-old woman named Hope lives in Colorado and “wants control over her life after a chaotic childhood.” She describes herself as “selfish with her time” and envisions having young children as “overload.” She and her husband “like [their] peace.” Saje, 28, describes her distrust of men and desire to maintain financial independence. Her perspective on relationships? “Now the girls are stone cold, not emotional. Like, this is what I want out of this relationship and if you’re not going to give it to me, I’m out.”
A helpful corrective to these views is actually found in the last paragraph of the piece. A woman named Jakeisha avoided having children until six years after marriage but found happiness in embracing motherhood: “We are comfortable and happy. … I want people to know it’s not so hard. The kids, they don’t care about the money. They only want your time and love.”
America’s future will stand or fall on the foundation of the family and Americans’ willingness to make little Americans, like Jakeisha did. The takeaway from the declining birth rate is not that it is a “good thing”; it is a nation-crushing malady. And the factors driving it — declines in marriage and the desire for children, refusal to embrace adulthood, and so forth — must be addressed if America and its people are to continue thriving.
Joshua Monnington is an assistant editor at The Federalist. He was previously an editor at Regnery Publishing and is a graduate of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
