If you are an American of childbearing age, Vice President JD Vance wants you to have a baby—and NOW! What’s more, he wants mom or dad, though most likely mom, to stay home with babies and young children. This is from a man who ran for public office on a ticket of getting big government out of Americans’ personal lives, and having a baby and raising a family is about as personal as it gets.
That said, Vance is far from alone in his concern about our nation’s declining birth rate and spouting ideas of what to do about it. The National Center for Disease Control, the CDC, reports that our birth rate has dropped steadily since the baby-booming 1950s, accelerating downward with the financial crisis of 2007-08, and reaching its lowest point ever in 2023 at 1.6 children for American women of childbearing age. The base population replacement level is considered 2.1 children per mother.
In blunt terms, the US population now has a shrinking fertility rate.
It could be worse.
South Korea holds the title for the fewest children born in any country, with a fertility rate of 0.72 per childbearing woman. Korean schools, now empty, are being repurposed for seniors. Other Asian nations, as well as European countries, face growing crises as well. Nations with the highest fertility rates are in Africa.
Population experts say the causes of falling birth rates are many and vary from nation to nation. These include delayed marriage and childbirth, high cost of living and high stress in work cultures, changing social values, gender inequity, and aging populations which put more financial and emotional stress on younger people.
I don’t know about you, but I see young people around me facing all these hurdles.
Vance and the so-called “natalist” movement believe that having large families benefits society and ultimately allows the human race to continue. Maybe so, but how to convince people of child-bearing age in our country and elsewhere to get to work creating more and larger families?
As far as I can tell, Vance and others have some ideas, though no universal agreement about them. Most of those ideas involve my tax dollars and yours. They include paid parental leave, increasing child tax credits, paying parents to stay home to care for preschoolers, paying relatives, likely grandma, to provide child care, lowering day care standards to make it more affordable, lower-cost housing, and the list goes on and on.
Note that Vance and other pro-natalists rarely mention who is going to pay for all this, and certainly do not mention the American taxpayer.
As the mother of three and grandmother of two, I know firsthand and now watch how difficult it is to raise children in today’s economy. Daycare now averages over $11,000 annually per child and is higher in more urban areas. Most families have two working parents, with less than a quarter of children having a stay-at-home mom and a mere 1 percent with a stay-at-home dad.
If I could wave my magic wand over this situation, I would make it so every family could choose what sort of family situation works best for them, regardless of cost, but that is a fantasy, of course.
In the meantime, I will pay no attention to Vance and the pro-natalists until they quit “setting the table” about what the problem is and realistically address what it will take to make raising a family something Americans not only want to do but can afford to do.