Beware the baby bust generation

"Fertility in America has been declining for years. According to the Pew Research Center, the nation’s birth rate hit an all-time low in 2011 — just 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. It was almost twice as high — 123 births per 1,000 women — at the peak of the Baby Boom in 1957.

As babies and children disappear from a society, what takes their place? One answer, as journalist Jonathan V. Last observes in a forthcoming book, “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting,” is pets.

In surveys taken from the 1940s to the 1980s, fewer than half of Americans said they owned a pet. Today America’s 300 million humans own 360 million pets. Last puts that in perspective: “American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one.” "............

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/ ... story.html

Guilty. Two dogs and no kids. Plus side? Canines have a smaller carbon footprint than children.

Blazer Bob wrote: In surveys taken from the 1940s to the 1980s, fewer than half of Americans said they owned a pet. Today America’s 300 million humans own 360 million pets. Last puts that in perspective: “American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one.” "............

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/ ... story.html

You quote that from 40-80 fewer than half of American said they owned a pet and then did not give that value for today.

You quote that today that the number of pets outnumber children 4 to 1 and then did not gave that value for 40-80.

So not only is it not apples to apples, the account of what happened from 40-80 was based on what people said and the data for today seems to be based on something else (govt dog and human tracking I assume as this is very important).

It's obvious births are down, I don't see what pets have to do with it. I don't register my dogs, because I have to many to live in my Colorado house for my zoning (lucky for me I keep secrets well and have more houses elsewhere to escape to), I would be forced to change my life. The govt would not know of my kids if I could do anything about it. There is no need for anyone else to be concerned about my/your pets or kids, oh unless you are pawning your taxation onto a new generation to support older ones - but that would just be outright immoral.

Why not just use known birth rate stats in stead of bad contrasts. Sounds like sensationalism of the obvious.

Gen-xers were a smaller group, will make less children, plus the economy sucks by design and the design is not changing so no one young thinks there will be any real opportunity in the near or known future - they are not dumb. Most folks don't want to punish their kids with a life of minimal opportunity, so what, this is all by design, we knew it was coming, we helped it along, we designed it (see min wage, etc.).

We need to find a way for the older generations to start bearing the full extent of their debt and not pass it on to future limited generations, we have already punished them enough. This could help so they can pay for their kids in stead of their neighbor's parents.

But in brighter news, I think one of my bitches is pregnant, here come another 6-12 pets for these few people to feed.

Irony? Americans think they are unable to afford children but much poorer societies like India still are producing children.

FredHayek wrote: Guilty. Two dogs and no kids. Plus side? Canines have a smaller carbon footprint than children.

Having a child is anyone's right, but the most environmentally unfriendly thing that just about any American can do, because most reading this will produce a resource hording mess of a child - myself included. Don't worry, I know you all think your kid will be the one to do more good than bad, I understand you need to think this, even though it is next to impossible for it to be true.

We as a nation don't really care about our footprint or effect on those we don't know and will never see. We barely care about the effect on those we do know, we spawned and we see every day. We really care if people think we care, though.

FredHayek wrote: Irony? Americans think they are unable to afford children but much poorer societies like India still are producing children.

Life is about hope.

Most of us are currently looking back at that easiest times of our lives, the most opportunity is behind us.

I think most that have less or those in countries not our our path are looking forward to opportunity.

We do a very poor job of managing hope, we expect people to somehow find hope in poor systems.

Now that's ironic to say given recent campaign slogans.

My two sisters have 8 kids between them. I'm covered, so I just have two dogs.

So will the Hispanic immigrants who have a higher birth rate be supporting all the childless whites when they retire?

FredHayek wrote: So will the Hispanic immigrants who have a higher birth rate be supporting all the childless whites when they retire?

With any luck....

Normally, I would suggest you get out there and start breeding to hold up your end of the ratio....But the idea of the gene-pool being that polluted is too horrible to think about... :Whistle

Wouldn't want to see me breed, a bunch of Neanderthal children espousing freedom instead of statism. Liberty instead of taxing everything. Self reliant instead of needy Julia's.