The fertility rate in the United States – measuring births per woman – fell sharply from 1960 through the 1970s and never recovered. According to World Bank statistics, in 1960 there were 3.65 births per woman in the United States and by 1980 there were only 1.84 births per woman, a decline of about 1/2. And it never recovered. In 2016 there were only 1.8 births per woman.
Women in the United States are having less than half the number of children they did in 1960.
Is it a coincidence that the fertility rate took a nosedive between 1960 and 1980 and never recovered?
Or did the “women’s liberation” movement that permeated that exact same time frame, contribute significantly to the decline?
To add an important comment to the mix it must be noted that the first birth control pill for women was approved in 1960. I have no doubt that this is the *mechanism* that led to the lower birth rates. But this question is not about mechanism but motivation. WHY did women choose to have fewer children, not how did they accomplish it.
It so happens that a couple of other relevant phenomena occurred in that same time frame in the 60s and 70s. There was the “womens’ liberation” movement, and there was also a massive change in the workforce as women learned that the meaning of being liberated was that they now not only had the primary responsibility of raising the children and taking care of the household chores, as they always had before, but also had to go to work – a duty previously expected only of men.
It sort of strikes me that calling this “liberation” is a bit of a cruel joke. If I wasn’t so adverse to conspiracy theories I might well suspect that it was actually men who formulated the womens’ liberation movement. As a man it seems almost too good to be true. Now she’s going to do her job AND mine?! Where do I sign her up?!
In light of this, is it any wonder that women chose to have fewer children? How can you be expected to be the primary caregiver for the children, the primary maintainer of the household and ALSO go to work? Even with fewer children, this seems an impossible assignment. Men made out like bandits after womens’ liberation. Kick your feet up on the coffee table and turn on the game! Don’t worry she’ll take care of junior and keep the popcorn and beer coming too!
The unfortunate and dangerous side effect though, that is good for neither American man nor woman, is that the current birth rate is too low to sustain the population, keep the economy strong and keep America safe or competitive. In other words it’s a national security risk.
One potential solution to this problem is to admit more immigrants to replace the missing children. But not just any immigrants. We need skilled immigrants who can contribute to the economy not be a drain on it. And we need wealthy immigrants who can use their capital to invest in American ventures, create US jobs and keep America in the innovative lead.
America is the most immigrant friendly country in the world by far admitting more immigrants every year than any other nation.
However, our immigration system is upside down. What we are getting is not the skilled and wealthy, but the unskilled and poor. Instead of moving the skilled and wealthy to the front of the immigration line we are favoring those with no skills to contribute who become dependent on our taxpayers and wards of the state. That creates even more strain on our economy and makes the problem even worse.
I wanted to write more but ran out of time. So, what are we to do to fix the low birth rate problem?
Most Helpful Opinions