Post: #1

US birth rate falls to record low


Preliminary data from 2011 shows the lowest birth rate in 90 years

The US birth rate hit a record low last year, led by the decline in child-bearing among foreign-born women, according to a Pew study.

The overall US birth rate decreased by 8% between 2007-10, and by 6% among US-born women, found the data.

The rate fell sharpest for those hardest hit by the recession: 14% among foreign-born women and 23% among Mexican immigrant women in particular.

The 2011 rate was the lowest since 1920, when such records began.

Previous research by Pew concluded that states with the largest economic downturn from 2007-08, were most likely to have experienced fertility declines.

Foreign and US-born Hispanic women have experienced the largest fall in household wealth since 2007.

But increased access to contraception for Latino women may also be playing a part in the falling birth rate, according to the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

Foreign-born mothers continue to give birth to a disproportionate share of the nation's newborns.

Last year there were 3.95 million total US births, according to the preliminary data from Pew Research Center.

The overall US birth rate was 63.2 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age.

It peaked in 1957 during the Baby Boom years, reaching 122.7 per 1,000 women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20550661

Post: #2

What is the minimum replacement birthrate per 1,000 women?

Post: #3

(11-30-2012 10:30 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  What is the minimum replacement birthrate per 1,000 women?

Not 100% relevant, but depends on the mortality rate: (from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Quote:Replacement rates

If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). However, the replacement level is also affected by mortality, asexuality, genetic disorders inhibiting procreation, and by women without the desire to have children. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero.

In 1957, 122.7 per 1,000 women ~ 3.8 children/woman
In 2011, 63.2 per 1,000 women ~ 1.894 children/woman
Minimum replacement rate ~2.1, which would be ~70 per 1,000 women is my guess.

Post: #4

This is what happens when you make birth control widely available. There's a reason the Pope and Catholics are against it.
Girls should be educated about morality and the purpose of the family structure instead of handing out birth control pills
and condoms and saying "Here go nuts!!".

In 20 years they'll be 3 hot girls left in the US and we'll all be fighting over them

Post: #5

brb converting to Islam

Post: #6

the natural result and overall point of feminism

- population control -

1. Make women pursue 'education', sports, and 'career' in their biological prime thus delaying marriage and childbearing.

2. Inculcate in them characteristics that make the unattractive to men - both physically and personality wise.

3. Contort the rule of law to criminalize men and dad, and make marriage and childbearing an expensive and actually dangerous proposition - thereby discouraging the men.

Result: Less marriage, less pair bonding, less children = lower population

Eugenics at its finest.

Post: #7

(11-30-2012 01:07 PM)Norset Wrote:  brb converting to Islam

ISLAMiC CULTURE = anti feminism at its most extreme

Post: #8

(11-30-2012 03:52 PM)kdolo Wrote:  the natural result and overall point of feminism

- population control -

1. Make women pursue 'education', sports, and 'career' in their biological prime thus delaying marriage and childbearing.

2. Inculcate in them characteristics that make the unattractive to men - both physically and personality wise.

3. Contort the rule of law to criminalize men and dad, and make marriage and childbearing an expensive and actually dangerous proposition - thereby discouraging the men.

Result: Less marriage, less pair bonding, less children = lower population

Eugenics at its finest.

Look at the Black community for a even more drastic view of this. In Black America they are not reproducing at a surplus right now. African Americans are literally vanishing with little dialogue on the subject at all.

Post: #9

(11-30-2012 10:20 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:52 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Look at the Black community for a even more drastic view of this. In Black America they are not reproducing at a surplus right now. African Americans are literally vanishing with little dialogue on the subject at all.

Do you have numbers newer than 2008? I can't find it. For 2008 it was:

2.09 – All races
1.84 – Non-Hispanic white
2.11 – Non-Hispanic black
1.84 – American Indian, Native Alaskan
2.06 – Asian & Pacific Islander
2.99 – Hispanic

African americans are doing (relatively) fine on those numbers..

Post: #10

Yeah, what are you talking about kosko? I've never seen *any* stats that black Americans are not reproducing. . . . huh??

Post: #11

(11-30-2012 11:37 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 10:20 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:52 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Look at the Black community for a even more drastic view of this. In Black America they are not reproducing at a surplus right now. African Americans are literally vanishing with little dialogue on the subject at all.

Do you have numbers newer than 2008? I can't find it. For 2008 it was:

2.09 – All races
1.84 – Non-Hispanic white
2.11 – Non-Hispanic black
1.84 – American Indian, Native Alaskan
2.06 – Asian & Pacific Islander
2.99 – Hispanic

African americans are doing (relatively) fine on those numbers..

(12-01-2012 12:19 AM)RobP Wrote:  Yeah, what are you talking about kosko? I've never seen *any* stats that black Americans are not reproducing. . . . huh??

You'd have to take in mortality rate as well. But I do agree based on those numbers that it is unlikely that black mortality rate is .25 higher than white mortality rate.

Post: #12

(12-01-2012 12:27 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 11:37 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 10:20 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:52 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Look at the Black community for a even more drastic view of this. In Black America they are not reproducing at a surplus right now. African Americans are literally vanishing with little dialogue on the subject at all.

Do you have numbers newer than 2008? I can't find it. For 2008 it was:

2.09 – All races
1.84 – Non-Hispanic white
2.11 – Non-Hispanic black
1.84 – American Indian, Native Alaskan
2.06 – Asian & Pacific Islander
2.99 – Hispanic

African americans are doing (relatively) fine on those numbers..

(12-01-2012 12:19 AM)RobP Wrote:  Yeah, what are you talking about kosko? I've never seen *any* stats that black Americans are not reproducing. . . . huh??

You'd have to take in mortality rate as well. But I do agree based on those numbers that it is unlikely that black mortality rate is .25 higher than white mortality rate.

I believe that is the catch, that when you factor in death rates the Black population is not re-producing itself. And the rates fall below and more in-line to the Aboriginal American numbers.

I would say digging around in here we might give some exact numbers?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf

Post: #13

so who will pay for my future entitlements?