Surveying more than 4,700 adults, the report finds that historical data show that the United States is now in its third historic period of extended below-replacement-rate fertility. It is currently at 1.6 children per woman, even though most families desire to have two or more children. The authors of the report, Lyman Stone and Peter Foreshaw Brookes, write that if fertility rates continue their recent decline, the U.S. population will peak at about 351 million and begin declining in the 2050s.
We are already seeing the ramifications of the below-replacement fertility rate on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are dependent upon younger workers paying into the system to provide income to those who have retired or will soon be nearing retirement.
In addition, public schools in many areas of the country are consolidating and closing their doors because of the lack of students. While greater educational opportunities are now available to parents and children who want to escape our failing educational system and are choosing alternatives such as charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling, the lack of children is playing a definite role in these closures as well.
But one of the key factors in America’s declining fertility rates is that we now have a culture that actively discourages large families while glorifying “self-fulfillment.” In addition, the continued breakdown of the family means that many young parents do not have access to the support they received in the past from their parents and grandparents in helping to raise their children—forcing them to go it alone.
Young families are also facing unique economic challenges that previous generations did not. Extracurricular activities, which in the past had either zero or minimal cost, now take up a sizeable amount of the family budget. In addition, housing costs continue to escalate at an alarming rate, resulting in families being unable to afford suitable homes large enough for growing families.
To that end, Stone and Brookes suggest five- to six-figure “baby bonuses” provided by the federal government (paid for with less than 1 percent of the federal budget), which would actually be cheaper overall than expanding childcare or parental leave. Such bonuses could help alleviate the financial stress I mentioned above and encourage couples, many of whom would like larger families but feel they cannot because of economic concerns, to have more children.
This is a fairly radical proposal, and because I usually oppose government subsidies, it took a minute for me to digest. But I came to realize that rather than just throwing money at a problem—the usual government solution—it is an investment that will pay dividends in the future.
For instance, more children will ultimately result in more young adults contributing to Social Security and Medicare, as well as paying taxes, while current decreasing numbers will do the exact opposite. It will mean more jobs for teachers and for education as a whole. And it will provide parents with multiple children to share the load for their care as they age and start facing physical and mental challenges.
Unless we reverse course and proactively take action to resolve our current and future demographic problems, we will continue to head down a one-way street that ultimately dead-ends. What Stone and Brookes propose is just a start in a cultural and economic course-correction, but it is one that is worthy of discussion and debate.
Healthy families create a healthy society—one that bridges all generations and benefits all. It is my hope that this report will be the start of such a national discussion and debate on how we can encourage and benefit from larger families and thereby help secure our joint future.
