During the Great Depression, the birth rate went way down. After WWII, the economy was good and the rate went way up. This seemed to be the natural pattern: births go up in good times and down in bad.
That may have ended with the widespread use of birth control pills in the 60s. The birth rate went way down for a reason unrelated to the economy. The question is, after allowing for the decrease due to birth control, is there still a relationship between the economy and the birth rate?
As I understand it, in the last half dozen years, the brth rate in the US has gone up. For example, this year, the Portland School District has seen a big rise in kintergarden enrollment after years of classes shrinking. But now we are entering some economically turbulent times. Economists are predicting an extended recession. Is the birth rate going to go back down because of this?
I don’t know much about the sociology of such things, but I would expect that birth control pills might make it MORE likely that the birth rate would vary in response to the economy, because it makes it more possible for couples to control whether they want to have kids or not. Would seem fairly natural that would-be parents get encouraged by the signs of a strong financial future for themselves - little tykes can get expensive and all that.
If there was no birth control at all, well, I’m not quite sure what kind of a correlation I’d expect to see. You could argue ‘people have sex to celebrate good times’ and ‘people have sex to console themselves for hardship’ about equally well. (Maybe all you can say for sure is ‘people have sex’ )
Well, the census in Spain tends to be way behind the times, but there have been a LOT of kids in the recent fat cow years, due to:
immigrants who reckon that (exact quote) “see, times are hard and I want my children to have a good education, so we can’t have more than four,”
people in their twenties being financially able to marry and have kids,
the previous generation deciding that things finally look safe enough to marry and have kids (I’m 40, my HS classmates either got married at 20 or, instead of at 25, held out until well into their 30s due to insecurity).
This previous generation was the previous wave of baby-boomers: the conflation of all three groups having kids at the same time means another baby boom.
The census was still crying about “not enough children” two years ago, when half the flats in my mother’s 30-homes building included a pregnant woman, baby or toddler. The other half included the grandmother of an upcoming baby, baby or toddler. There definitely weren’t that many kids around when my HS classmates and me finished college (official unemployment rate at the time, 24%).
Now that the cows are on a diet, I hear people saying “well, the times don’t look good to have a baby, but if we wait, our firstborn will end up being a single child. So it’s now or never, therefore it’s now.”
News reports such as this one: U.S. Birth Rate At Record Low, Experts Blame Recession say that the birth rate is going down due to the current recession. Of course that’s based on only two years data, but that’s probably enough. Or at least enough for newspapers.
There has always been some kind of “family planning” available, with abstinence and withdrawal being the most common methods. These are not good ways to make sure that you have no children ever, but they are pretty effective at making sure you only have 3-5 kids instead of the 10-12 you’d have if you didn’t try at all.
Anecdotally, when both myself and my girlfriend lost our jobs (and medical/prescription insurance), we decided that $300-some dollars a month for birth control was unsustainable. Condoms, naturally, are a good alternative. If you don’t hate them, that is (and boy, do I hate them).
I could see this as a marginal contributor to increased birth rates (on a case-by-case basis, of course). That big box of rubbers should really get used more often than it actually does…
She should go to a free clinic or Planned Parenthood. They’ll provide her with discounted/free contraceptives. She might even be able to get something from the local public health department. Skimping on birth control is an idiotic way to save money. :eek: Children cost a hell of alot more that birth control pills.
The teen pregnancy in the 50s was largely that of 18 and 19 year old girls who got married 15 minutes after high school graduation and pregnant 4 weeks on either side of that. There was not, as far as I know, any particular stigma against that.
We tend to use “teen pregnancy” and “unwed pregnancy” as synonyms, but they aren’t. The last 60 years have seen a steady fall in teen pregnancy and a steady rise in unwed pregnancy.
Not to say the birth rate hasn’t gone up, I don’t know the data on that, but are you sure enrollment’s a good example? Or could it be that people can no longer afford private schools due to the economy, and so more parents are sending their kids to public school?
The birth rate was quite high in 2007, but has gone down quite sharply since then. Nobody knows for sure why, but most people think it is because of the recession.
$300 a month!:eek: Shit. When my then fiancee was out of work a few years back and had no insurance, I think she was paying something like $25 to $30 for generics (now that we’re married she gets them for $5 a month on my insurance). And when she was in college I believe she got a year’s supply either for free or heavily discounted from some Planned Parenthood-type women’s clinic.
Your girlfriend is getting severely ripped off.
You should note that I posted that 2 years ago, so I was talking about enrollment in 2008. The recession had just gotten started then, but yes, that may have been a factor. However, one source (cite) says the birth rate did go up in 2003, although it was just temporary uptick against a slowly falling rate. The last couple years have seen a big drop.
Yeah - WTH? My generic oral contraceptive retails for $25 per 28-day pack but there are a few popular brands that retail for $5 per 28-day pack at places like Target, Wal-Mart, etc.
I assume your GF must have extremely unusual medical contraceptive needs.
What kind of contraceptive is she using? I was between insurance for a month this year, and had to buy a month’s worth of birth control pills with no insurance. It was about $30.
Yes but… Accidental pregnancies by people to young to even have a job are probably recession-proof. When the cost of a baby is irrelevant to you personally, and likely other social or family consequences much more important, the job market probably does not matter.
It might matter significantly to the 18 and 19yo’s. Plus, of course, the pressure from parents to have an abortion due to financial considerations might have some effect on the birth rate for younger girls.
However, I suspect the major effects are from married couples who time their children based on personal circumstances. For them, finances probably play a major part. Nava probably makes the best point - it’s not just people deciding “times are good so we can have our kids on schedule” but also those who postponed their decision from previous years or decade(s) getting caught up. This could exaggerate the size of the cycle.
The only choice you might not see is “we better have our kid before I get laid off!” although who knows - maybe in the USA, it is “we better have our kid while I still have health care!”
)