However, a recent study by our friends at Americans for Limited Government brought us up short, as it revealed that the erosion of the American fertility rate is not necessarily economic in origin.
It may be that the decision to have children and maintain a traditional family is now a “lifestyle choice” as opposed to an economic choice. Read on to see how Robert Romano, Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government, breaks down the numbers.
“Consumer prices are up 988 percent since Jan. 1960. Median income are up from $5,600 in 1960 to $80,610 in 2023, a 1,339 percent increase. So, over the past 65 years, income has increased more than prices by the measures we tend to rely on, but fertility is still way down to 1.61 births per woman in 2023, a record low. That’s because the cost of living is not the exclusive cause of low fertility.
“Instead, birth rates are down because of the approval of birth control by the FDA in 1960 and the expansion of higher education that incentivized young women to join the labor force and pursue degrees, careers and higher incomes. The average cost of a college degree is about $80,000 and the current scheme of financial aid and loan programs subsidize that. Clear majorities of men and women go to college, but maybe wouldn’t if there were no support programs, therefore the incentives have succeeded in changing behavior.
“So, if anything, a $5,000 ‘baby bonus’ now under consideration might not be large enough of an inducement to change women’s behavior. If put into place, ‘baby bonuses’ have to compete with college, career and lifetime earnings that women would get if they didn’t have children. If the baby bonuses can’t compete because Congress tries to boost fertility on the cheap, it could just wind up subsidizing the 3.5 million births that would have happened anyway, costing $18 billion without boosting birth rates.
“Again, if ‘baby bonuses’ are not big enough it will just be a subsidy for people who were already going to have kids without actually increasing the fertility rate. Young women can get tens of thousands of dollars in financial aid and loans to get a degree and career and a higher income. And a $5,000 one-time subsidy might not be enough to change the calculation. If the goal is to prevent population collapse and prevent financial ruin — the $36 trillion national debt would be much, much lower today if birth rates had remained at 3.6 per woman as they were in 1960 — there needs to a cultural shift in incentives that could be beyond what Congress is politically capable of achieving. Congress should carefully consider proposals to boost birth rates provided they actually boost birth rates.”
- 2024 Election
- Baby Bonus
- Trump policies
- social policy
- fertility rate
- lifestyle choices
- Robert Romano
- median incomes
- Births per woman
- cost of living
- birth control
- cost of education
