US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low: What's Behind The Decline?

The number of babies born in the United States has hit a 40-year low, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Provisional 2017 estimates reveal that around 3.8 million babies were born in the U.S. in 2017, a fertility rate of 1.76 births per woman. This is a 2% drop from 2016 - marking the largest single-year drop in the U.S. birth rate since 2010, and is significantly lower than the 4.31 million babies born in 2007 when the fertility rate was 2.08 births per woman.

When the data is restricted to women aged 15 - 44, there were around 60 births per 1,000 mothers - a 3% drop from 2016, and the lowest record rate since the government began keeping track in 1909. 

Since 2007, fertility has fallen the most for the youngest women, but in the last year, declines have set in for women in their 30s as well. Fertility declines increasingly seem to be about much more than just postponed fertility, or else these women must be planning to have some very fertile 40s.

At least through 2016, this trend appeared to be mostly driven by changes in marital status. Births to never-married women are down more than births to ever-married women: age-adjusted marital fertility is down 14% since 2007, while age-adjusted never-married fertility is down 21%, as of 2016. Preliminary data from several states suggest these trends are likely to continue in 2017. -IFS

The teen birth rate fell 7% from 2016-2017, down to 19 births per 1,000 teen mothers aged 15-19 - while the birth rate for women under 40 generally declined to record lows. 

When looking at fertility by race, the decline has hit minorities particularly hard vs. non-Hispanic whites. 

the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites.


The deficit varies across racial and ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives have it worst among racial groups, having lost a whopping 15% of expected fertility from 2008 to 2016, or about 83,000 births, with total fertility rates falling from 1.62 births per woman to a shockingly low 1.23. It’s unclear exactly why Native American fertility has fallen so quickly and why it is so low, but they are indisputably the hardest-hit race in the fertility declines of the last 10 years. -IFS

African American births are down 9.6%, or around 700,00 babies - which is only slightly worse than whites, who are down 9.3%, or around 3.2 million births.

"Black fertility declined from 2.15 births per woman to 1.89, while white fertility fell from 2.14 to 1.82," reads IFR's analysis, while "Asians experienced a less severe decline, but their fertility was somewhat lower to start with."

The fertility rate among whites is a bit misleading, admits IFR, as it includes most Hispanics - who have historically higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. When looking at Hispanics as a whole, the birth rate between 2008-2016 has declined nearly 19%.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist: it’s hammered Native Americans and Hispanics particularly hard, and hit even African Americans harder than whites generally, and certainly harder than non-Hispanic whites. The call to boost fertility is far from being a call for whites to keep up with minority fertility; rather, it’s an exhortation that we need to be listening to the fertility desires of women of racial and ethnic minorities, who are experiencing precipitous declines in fertility, largely unnoticed by the white-dominated world of mommy-blogs and late-in-life fertility treatments. Any serious pro-natal policy in America worth its salt would primarily result in birth gains among minority mothers, not white ones. Accelerating the national birth rate would also accelerate the pace at which the non-Hispanic white population share declines.-IFR

North Dakotans Are Gettin' It On

While birth rates in most states have declined, North Dakota has experienced an increase in births. 

On the other hand, residents of Arizona don't seem to feel the need to breed - where fertility rates have fallen from 2.47 births per woman in 2007 to an estimated 1.81 last year.  

Provisional data from early 2018 suggests these declines are likely to continue. Arizona is double-whammied by two different racial or ethnic trends: steep declines among Hispanics and steep declines among Native Americans. Both groups make up a larger share of Arizona’s population than the national average. Both groups have seen steep declines within Arizona; steeper even than their peers in other states. -IFR

In terms of education, the drop in fertility rates have been higher for less educated woman vs. their more educated peers. As IFR notes, "Age-adjusted fertility has fallen 15% for women with a bachelor’s degree or less, versus just 7% for women with graduate degrees. On the whole, births to women with no bachelor’s have totaled 12% below what would be expected if 2007 fertility rates had continued, yielding 3.1 million missing births, while births to women with a bachelor’s degree are down 10% for 1.1 million missing births, and births to women with a graduate degree are down just 7%, or 300,000."

The takeaway is that class is not the biggest factor in declining fertility rates. Instead, race, ethnicity, marital status and geography appear to have far more relevance.


Killtruck Theta_Burn Thu, 05/17/2018 - 21:51 Permalink

debt. working three jobs because you got your masters degrees, living in mom's basement waiting for her to die so you might get a little inheritance. can't buy a car, can't buy a house, can't support yourself, can't support a wife, can't support children. 

diet. can't afford food with nutrients (because of debt), so people eat shit and cheese product and soy.

synthetic estrogen. everywhere. shriveling your nuts, killing your virility, putting cysts on her ovaries and giving her breast cancer.

lack of suitable men. soyboys and spaghetti-armed David Hogg-like pussies who were told that winning doesn't matter because everyone gets a trophy. checked out of reality and checked into the video games. i personally know two young, high quality phillies who right now will most likely end up alone because they can't find men that are suitable to breed with and they refuse to settle. It's a problem. 

In reply to by Theta_Burn

Teja any_mouse Fri, 05/18/2018 - 03:14 Permalink

Abortion, contraception and maybe celibacy are the means with which people control their birth rates, not the causes.

If you look at the possible causes, cultural ones in the sense of the "pussyfication" of white youngsters are not supported by birthrates falling stronger in more macho culture oriented groups, like Latinos or Native Americans.

Have a look at the long term timeline of fertility - after an overcompensation peak in the early 60's, birthrates have fallen extremely quickly, then risen to a plateau, but now falling again.

For me, that points to two major causes motivating people to use the means listed above (also available from the 60's) to reduce the number of kids they raise:

- Economy - the end of the postwar boom in the 60's and the slow decline over the last 20 or so years. Rising health costs by a non solidarical monster of a health system. I wonder what the costs in the US are for the birth of one child? And who would be paying them? Education costs of course too.

- Cars - forcing kids to play at home instead of roaming free, and heightening the effort to manage them by being forced to drive them to school and everywhere. People will stop getting more than two children, especially in urbanized areas. Look at the map where birthrates are falling - the most urbanized states, as a rule of thumb. Also, especially in the 60's, culling of young people by car accidents.

Look at the birth rates of the Amish who stay out of the economic and car system. Extrapolate them and see where you end up in 100 years.

Also, pollution (not only by cars of course) and stress - ref. semen count.

By outlawing abortion and contraception, a heavy handed state could try to reverse the trend, but looking at Catholic countries like Ireland, this does not really work and would anyway say hasta la vista to the "Land of the Free".


In reply to by any_mouse

Tarzan Teja Fri, 05/18/2018 - 04:54 Permalink

Our family apparently isn't following the trend.  Our first grand child came two years ago, the fourth will arrive in August.  I suspect they'll stop at two each. 

But then my third son is getting married in Scotland this October, so more to come I'd imagine.

Grand kids are gifts from heaven!

In reply to by Teja

dizzyfingers Teja Mon, 05/21/2018 - 09:48 Permalink

Culling the young by war seems to have been the plan in the USA since the end of WW2. Once dead, no longer a breeder. Lots of my friends went to Vietnam. Many who came back don't have kids. Many didn't come back. And since that time, wars became D.C.'s "thing". USA is interfering everywhere. Wars now consume not only males, but females. Factor in US abortions from the time of legalization until now. How could this NOT be some sort of plan?

In reply to by Teja

Teja Bananamerican Fri, 05/18/2018 - 07:42 Permalink

Assuming minorities to be worse off financially on average, any incentives will work better with people with lower income of course.

For minorities like Asian-Americans who are better off these days than the North-European-Americans as they work more and drink less, this might be different.

But don't you worry, afaik there are enough poor white couples around in the US.

In reply to by Bananamerican

CJgipper Teja Fri, 05/18/2018 - 08:01 Permalink

Fuck that noise.  How about a policy that lets people WHO CAN AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS have them?  Why do we keep subsidizing people who CANNOT afford to take care of their kids to have more?  Why don't we start subsidizing people who CAN afford to take care of kids to have them?


The new tax system with its much higher income cap for the child tax credit is a HUGE step in the right direction.  Giving a credit lets those in the actual middle class income range offset some of their HUGE tax burden.  We need to quit giving tax money to people who already don'e make enough money to owe any taxes.

In reply to by Teja

johnconnor Ignatius Fri, 05/18/2018 - 01:02 Permalink

One word: feminism....

it brought the family court system biased against men, it brought women rights and no responsibilities, it brought war against masculinity, war against families,  it brought the believe that women can go to college, have a carrier and have non restarted babies when they are in their 40s, and so many wonderful things that will destroy the West and the world is plagued with shitskins and muzzies 

In reply to by Ignatius

bloofer johnconnor Fri, 05/18/2018 - 08:46 Permalink

On the contrary. The only people liberated by the womens' liberation movement were the men. Men have been freed from all social, sexual, or financial responsibility. Women now have all the responsibilities. They have to bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and assume all or almost all responsibility for housework and childcare, even if they are married.

While it's true that men may be required to support their kids on occasion, in the event of divorce or if they fathered kids out of wedlock, court-ordered child support is not enforced in many states. My state makes no effort whatsoever to enforce child-support.

One of my elderly friends once contacted our state's child-support enforcement people to inquire as to why the state had taken no action to enforce child-support for his grandchildren (whom he was helping support). They responded that they could not locate the children's father. He replied, "You might try looking in the phone book."

Even when child-support is actually enforced and Dad pays it, it is an insignificant contribution in terms of the real costs of providing for children. Mom is still carrying 90% of the financial burden.

So, in divorce, maybe you might have to make about a 10% financial contribution towards providing for your children--alongside a 0% contribution towards their care. Cry me a river.

In reply to by johnconnor

fedupwhiteguy bloofer Fri, 05/18/2018 - 19:17 Permalink

bloofer...ur r so off the freakin' mark its not funny!!

50% of women have a man already picked out as plan b if their current relationship fails. (

60% of women admit to having an affair. (

69% of wives initiate divorce. (

90% of wives, wherein the couple are college-educated, initiates divorce. (

10% of children are false paternity. (

95% of genetic counselors lie about paternity. (

41% of 1st marriages end in divorce. (

60% of 2nd marriages end in divorce.

73% of 3rd marriages end in divorce.

82.2% of women granted child custody. (

Child support payments can be extended beyond 18 years of age. (

Alimony payments continue even when women cohabitate with another man. (

Palimony payments forced on men who had live-in girlfriends. (

Prenups are thrown out in favor of fairness. (

Divorce devastates men financially (paying for 2 households) & emotionally (loss of access to children). (

Postponing intercourse until 26+ avoids life's pitfalls (cock carousel riders are bad news all around). (

Virgin brides divorce less than cock carousel riders. (

Women start losing their Sexual Market Value at 20 y.o. (

Women gain weight after marriage. (

Frequency of sex drops off after marriage. (

Woman are just crazy for a man's money. (

Sperm donors can be forced to pay child support. (

In reply to by bloofer

Teja Give Me Some Truth Fri, 05/18/2018 - 03:40 Permalink

The reverse is true. Debts per capita will increase when the population falls. Prices for goods will be stable because of falling demand. Only real estate will go up for some time as young people flee desolate small towns which have become pensioner's homes.

Look at Japan, or at Eastern Germany, or at beautiful but dying Italian small towns.

Long term death spiral.

In reply to by Give Me Some Truth

Faeriedust uhland62 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 06:30 Permalink

1) Women in the "working class" were ALWAYS in the workforce.  Where do you think all the nannies and maids cleaning upper-class houses came from?

2) WOMEN wanted to be in the workforce because many of them didn't want their only career option to be "glorified, legally-licensed whore".  Especially when the long-term, sex-on-demand contract with a single john didn't even come with a salary or a credit rating in their own names.  And did come with a mother-in-law.

3)  Birthrates are also a reflection of social conditions.  When women have power over their own bodies, they don't tend to produce as many children as when all the decisions are made by males who don't have to carry the little monsters, feed them from their own breasts, wipe their butts, and cater to their whims 24/7.

In reply to by uhland62

bloofer Faeriedust Fri, 05/18/2018 - 09:19 Permalink

I can't concur with everything you say here, though your first point about working-class women having always had some presence in the labor force is true. I think the characterization of marriage as a form of prostitution is exaggerated. Marriage should properly be viewed as a relationship in which the spouse becomes "family," which I mean in the sense that upon marriage a wife's tie to her husband should be viewed in the same way as her ties to her blood relatives--essentially indissoluble (though one may sometimes choose not to associate with ones blood relatives). And likewise the husband's ties to his wife should be viewed as the equivalent of his blood relationship with sister or mother.  While husband and wife will presumably be procreating, one would like to assume that sexual exploitation does not figure strongly in family relationships.

Re the matter of child-bearing, my opinion is that the desire to have children (and all that goes with that) is hard-wired into most women's sexual/emotional/psychological nature. Feminism never supported women's real interests, needs, and desires. Instead it has denigrated feminine roles and essentially worked very hard to turn women into men. Feminism has presented all feminine roles as degrading and has devalued feminine roles.

In my view, the traditional feminine role of wife, mother, homemaker, and nurturer is (in a healthy society) absolutely preeminent. The continuation of the species, the genetic heritage, and the cultural heritage is the most important role in any culture. Men's roles are merely to support women in this, although I will grant that throughout most of human history the male contribution has been essential to this project of the continuation of "the species, the genetic heritage, and the cultural heritage."

Also in my view, most women are hard-wired to deeply desire to fulfill this role. If feminism were really about benefiting women (and hence society) it would have supported women's status and well-being in feminine roles. Instead, feminism encouraged women to abandon feminine roles and degrade devalue themselves at multiple levels.


In reply to by Faeriedust

New World Chaos uhland62 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 08:08 Permalink

But they did think it through.  How else could you manufacture one of the main excuses for mass immigration?  And since White people are the most likely to forgo children when conditions are bad, the shitty economy plus shit salaries plus the middle class being taxed the most have all led to additional fertility problems.  White replacement is the ultimate goal.  Even the author of the article talks about it.  (The solution is more welfare, I presume).

The problem with white people is that we make bad slaves.  And when we chimp out against our Joo overlords, we don't burn down the liquor store- we burn down the whole fucking continent.  Therefore, we must be replaced by people who are too dumb to even know who their enemies are and too short-sighted to get their shit together enough to mount an effective rebellion.

So our smartest women are encouraged to chase after Joobucks and an evaporating Joo pension and Joo consumer crap and pay Joo taxes and pay Joo welfare to so third-world ingrates can have families, while our own best women forgo families of their own.  They throw away the thing that will give them the most fulfillment.  And they throw away their good genes.  They will end up in state-run nursing homes staffed by Somalis.  This is called "empowerment".

Most women are quite happy to spend their prime years fucking ratbag losers but when it comes time to settle down, they have an impossible 300-point list.  The most important items on the list are:  1) He must not earn less money than she does, 2) He must not have lower social status than she does, and 3) He must not be less alpha than the most alpha guy she has fucked.  These three items are more important than being over 6 feet tall, which as as we know, is fairly important.  These criteria have been programmed by millions of years of evolution so they cannot be rescinded, although there is a workaround which most ancient cultures have discovered.

So, what do the Joooooos do?  They encourage the exact opposite of traditional values.  They use affirmative action to tip the scales in favor of women in the workforce.  They give women fancy titles and inflate their egos to enormous size.  They tell them they deserve the very best men, simply by virtue of having a pussy, and the Universe will surely provide, because pussy.  Women are encouraged to fuck around so as to make sure that the only man who could ever satisfy condition #3 will be a man who would never settle down with a 35-year-old slag.  (((Tinder))) is part of this.  It's like one of those pherome traps for beetles, but it works on females instead of males. 

So you see, the Jooo's main problem wasn't that the family was effectively "unionized" against big business- although that was certainly part of it.  The main problem was that white Christians would be the most effective resistance against the world satanic dictatorship described in the Book of Revelation.  Therefore we must be eliminated, whether by being cucked out of existence, or even by nuclear war.  That's what U1 was all about.  Start WWIII, suck America and Russia and possibly Europe into a nuclear war, and get everyone begging for world government afterwards.  Bonus points for shifting the blame for the inevitable collapse of the (((financial system))).

In reply to by uhland62

iLLivaniLLi19 New World Chaos Fri, 05/18/2018 - 10:18 Permalink

Fairedust is a good example above. Nominally intelligent female but entirely selfish and short-sighted. She doesn't think women should have kids because they don't get paid enough for it, have to stay with one "john", and doesn't like changing diapers. Yet she doesn't realize she's an evolutionary dead-end and will be replaced by cultures who find joy and value in children and just so happen to treat women like property. It's nothing more than a temper-tantrum against nature.


The problem for European men is that our strengths are attractive to women in times of barbarism, but look like weakness in times of civility. There's a huge difference between a man who doesn't beat his wife because he loves her and believes it wrong, and that exact same man not being allowed to beat his wife because the government will destroy him. 

In reply to by New World Chaos

bloofer iLLivaniLLi19 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 16:07 Permalink

"I'll tell you what" (to quote Jack Twist's dad in Brokeback Mountain), those of you who are dads of girls and young women might want to ask yourself if YOU would advise your daughter to pursue a career as a stay-at-home wife and mother.

I'm guessing not. Or, if yes, you would advise your daughter to hedge her bets in as many ways as are possible.

That would be because it has many disadvantages as a career choice. Perhaps the largest disadvantage is that it is uncompensated. (How many guys choose careers that are uncompensated?) And don't kid yourself on that score. I could listen stories of women in my generation all day about how they did half the farm labor and all the housework and child care (not to mention childbearing), and their husbands wouldn't give them the money to buy a pocket comb.

I think another common response a dad might make is that he would advise her to choose such a career, "if she could find the right guy." If you are a dad, you know perfectly well that you have never met a male in your daughter's age group who fits this description. What's worse, if your daughter confides in you about such matters, you know that this assortment of losers kind of expects your daughter to go along with butt sex.

Actually, I am exaggerating a little. Two of my daughters (and possibly three) have found great guys. One is now a stay-at-home housewife and another is on track to be one.

Did I advise them to do this? I mind my own business. However, when asked, I have replied: Children are worth anything. Even if your hubby eventually runs off with a tap-dancer and you wind up cleaning gas-station bathrooms to support the kids alone, it's worth it. Even if this life as a wife and mother comes to a premature end through a variety of other possible unforeseen events (death and disability come to mind), you will have had a real worthwhile and fulfilling life for however many years it lasted. (You will not have this as a career woman.)


In reply to by iLLivaniLLi19

MEFOBILLS ufos8mycow Fri, 05/18/2018 - 09:08 Permalink

Or it could be that the US Gov realized that 50% of the American populous wasn't paying taxes


Private debts paid off during WW2. New debt cycle initiated with women entering workforce late 60's and early 70's.  

So, which is it chicken or egg first?  Government is controlled by finance oligarchy, I suggest you look at finance rather than blame government.  

In a debt money system, new debts are to pay off old debts.  Now the new debt bankster machine is trying to absorb the world, and especially wanted to put Russia into dollar debts.  It didn't work, and is now running out of new things and new people to hypothecate.  Even new third world immigrants and Muslims aren't enough.

In reply to by ufos8mycow