Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are low/falling wages now threatening the American family and the ability to have/raise children?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:21 PM
Original message
Are low/falling wages now threatening the American family and the ability to have/raise children?
Is growing poverty due to outsourcing/free trade/low wages/unemployment having a negative impact on birth rates in today's America?

Is it becoming unaffordable to bring a child into this world nowadays?

Are people not having children because of growing poverty?

Most people nowadays are struggling to make ends meet. Many folks can hardly fend for themselves nowadays, let alone trying to raise a child. It's becoming a challenge just to feed/clothe/shelter ourselves.

Falling wages are a prime suspect. The purchase power of the working class is in a state of freefall due to waning earning power and unemployment.

I recently talked to a lifelong friend who's been married for 8 years. Him and his wife are in their mid 30's. He told me that they aren't planning on having any children any time soon and perhaps never because he said that they can't even afford to hardly eat and he can't even afford a prescription medicine that he's supposed to be taking.

They don't have any children and aren't planning for a family because of their impoverished situation. It really got me thinking. How prevalent is this problem throughout our society.

If you've read this far..

Do you know of anyone that this scenario applies to? Look closely at America in the past 30 years. Especially since NAFTA and free trade began outsourcing almost every good paying middle class job. Manufacturing gone. Along with it, the middle class. Gone.

Is it becoming nearly impossible for working class Americans to raise a family nowadays?

Are low/falling wages and growing poverty impacting birth rates in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. People not having children is the best thing that could happen to this world.
Overpopulation will bring 'the end' before 2100.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree that overpopulation may be humanity's #1 crisis..
but empoverishing humanity isn't the way to address the problem.

I'm not saying that you implied that. You didn't. Just sayin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. I agree
well that and predatory capitalism.. and stupidity.. but overpopulation is way up there too! it's impossible to even talk about with most people though - especially overly religious peeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. If lowered wages reduce the birthrate, it will be the only positive
side to our bad economy. Judging from statistical rises and falls over past decades, the birth rate is likely declining in accordance with the sucky economy now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Probably not.
It doesn't really cost anything to have sex. That's about as far ahead as most of us see the baby having process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. I doubt it.
I think smart and responsible people look at their economic situation and think it through carefully before having children. I also think smart and responsible people will never, ever constitute a majority of the population.

The low wages are indeed threatening the American family, but not to the point of reducing the number of families. Rather, increasing the overall level of misery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Even people who don't have children
are being hurt too.

To answer your question, yes, low wages and growing poverty are impacting birth rates in America.


Even if I was really rich, I wouldn't want children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudohioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. You could be on to something there.
If I were contemplating having a family right now, low/falling wages would certainly play a big part in my decision. Or at least weigh in on whether I wanted one or two kids.

Having been a single mother for the last 12 years, I can tell you that providing for even the most basic necessities is a huge struggle. And that may factor in why my 21 year old daughter says she never wants to have kids.

Walmart: falling prices=falling wages!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Exactamundo.
I was hoping a DU parent would reply. Thanks for the informed reply. Informed through experience.

Agree 100%.

What you replied is exactly the points I'm trying to make in this OP.

Thanks for adding.

Peace

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudohioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. You are very welcome...
and I love your screen name!

Peace back to you!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wouldn't it be better if we had less children?
There wouldn't be so much competition for jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. I'd be repeating reply #2..
Family planning, access to reproductive health for women etc are the best ways to combat overpopulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. No disagreement here. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Nope
People are still having children whether they can afford to or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. No. The US birth rate is not falling, but increasing.
http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html


U.S. fertility first dropped to less than replacement level fertility in 1972,11 and by 2002 had dropped to a record low.19 (Replacement level fertility is 2.1 children per woman because of infant mortality - see terms). During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population.11, 12 Because of population momentum, U.S. population would have increased to 255 million by 2020 and then gradually declined.11

In 2000, births increased 3% over births in 1999 - the third straight increase following nearly a decade of decline from 1990 through 1997.12 Now, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime is at 2.03 - slightly below replacement level.12



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. the increase in the birth rate since the 70s is entirely due to the large increase
in immigration since the 70s (immigrants from countries with higher birthrates); but their birthrates decline in the second generation, & despite this, the birthrate remains near replacement rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. So, they shouldn't be counted in USA birth rates? Or the recession wouldn't have any affect on them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. you seem to have missed the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
14. The opposite is demonstrably true.
Birthrates decline when standard of living increases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. The baby boom generation would refute that.
After the war, jobs were plentiful, it was easy to earn a living wage, the American dream of home ownership and two cars in every garage was becoming a reality. The population took off like a rocket.

Conversely, during the great depression, the birth rate was down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. Ever see Idiocracy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Pop pop pop pop pop pop pop! Like Rabbits.
Surely explains the 59 or so million who voted for the Failure Fuhrer . .. twice. And out of that, the 57 million people who thought President Sarah Palin was a great idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. YES!!! We pay 400 a week car for our twins...it's overtly expensive and I live in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jxnmsdemguy65 Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. From what I can tell, the only people who can afford to have kids are doctors...
and some others involved in the medical industrial complex (MIC) as well as those poor people who can still qualify for what's left of state and federal child support programs (WIC, Head Start, etc). The rapidly-shrinking middle class and increasingly impoverished workers just can't afford to do it. Hence the rise of alternative - some would say hedonistic - lifestyles without children. For many, it's their only chance at fulfillment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I agree 100%
Very interesting perspective and also very true.

Thanks for adding.

:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. Money didn't make me change my mind about procreating
In fact, having money and health insurance allowed me to make sure I'd never have any children. Education equals lower birth rates, not lack of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. No, counterintuitively, it is the other way round
The more financially secure, the fewer children people have.

The first world has fewer children than the third.

There is a higher survival rate for the children. In the insecure old days, people had many to insure that some survived.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. The middle class was destroyed long ago.
But people who can't afford children are having them anyway.

The corporate bosses decided to depress wages, make sure momma and daddy BOTH had to work outside the home, and then they could blame it on feminism.

It ain't feminism, it's simply greed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
27. People are being paid below subsistence
that's the point. We were at this point prior to unionization during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 10th 2024, 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC