America’s Baby Shortage: The U.S. Population Isn’t Replacing Itself

The number of births-per-woman needs to average 2.1 kids for the population to maintain itsel. The U.S. sits at just 1.6 with possible implications for the work force, immigration and economic output.

This week we looked at the fertility rate in the U.S. and worldwide. On average, births per woman have fallen to historic lows both in the U.S. and around the world.

The U.S. has fallen to 1.6, which is well below the 2.1 births needed for the population to maintain itself. The U.S. population can still grow or hold steady through immigration, but it’s not maintaining itself on new births alone.

In the 1960s, the worldwide average births per woman was near five and relatively stable. In the U.S., the rate was around 3.6 births-per-woman at the start of the decade. But it was already in steep decline, dropping below two by the 1970s as contraception became more available and socially accepted. Do we thank the hippy movement at this point? TBD.

U.S. birth rates recovered a little to just over two births per woman, but in 2009 the decline started again. The dot-com bust, economic uncertainty, the mortgage crisis, and a shaky financial system all played their part.

Meanwhile, the global average has also fallen in a steady and significant fashion. The most recent worldwide figure is just 2.2, teetering on the edge of dropping below the magical 2.1 mark needed for replacement.

What happens when the world’s population stops growing? It’s hard to know. But some trends seem likely: countries will fight for talent, governments will incentivize childbirth, and financiers will invest more in technologies to augment or replace a shrinking workforce.

In a world with a stagnant or declining population, the loss of life takes on greater meaning — emotionally, because there are fewer people, and practically, because there are fewer workers, soldiers, and civil servants to keep society running.

Watch this space. It’ll be interesting.