Strollerderby : population

Endangered Species Watch: Parents

JeanneSager — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:28:00 GMT

My fellow parents, I've got bad news: we're officially outnumbered.

The U.S. Census Bureau announced this week that those of us with kids under eighteen living at home is at the lowest number in a decade.

Until the mid-1980s, we were the largest sector of the American population, but the numbers are dipping as baby boomers' kids age out (not necessarily MOVING out) and fertility rates steadily decline. At the latest count, the census counted twenty-five million married couples living with kids, a decline of a million from 2008. It's the lowest the number has gone since 1999.

The numbers only account for married couples - so this doesn't actually mean there are fewer children today. What about all the single parents, the parents living together without a marriage certificate (either because they don't want one or because they're gay)? In fact, the survey specifically left out same sex couples, which is another governmental snub to the non-traditional family.

It did note that of sixty-seven million opposite-sex couples living together, sixty million were married. For a racial break-down, check out the New York Times piece here.

Do you feel like a minority? Or is our family-centered culture keeping the parent power alive?

Image: MentalHealth.org

Japan: Workers Sent Home to Procreate

SunnyChanel — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:30:00 GMT

How often does your employer request that you leave work early to go have sex? Probably not very often. But this practice has become a policy for Japanesse companies such as Canon. Why do they want their workers to get busy in the bedroom rather than just in the boardroom? To combat the low birth rate that is now plaguing the Japanese population. Right now their birthrate is 1.34, but an average of 2.0 is what is required to keep their population steady.

According to CNN, twice a week high tech giant Canon is allowing their employees to leave work early for some good old -fashioned baby making. In a culture where twelve hour work days are the norm, couples are too tired and busy to start a family. This is cited as one of the main reasons in the drop in births in addition to a high cost of living and “social rigidity toward women and parenting.”

This policy to push for procreation may soon become popular with other Japanese companies soon as well. Japan’s largest business organization Keidanren also urged their members to let their employees go home early to get some lovin’. Forget the overtime, this sounds like a great benefit to all.

Source

Whites Quickly Becoming Minority in U.S.

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:18:00 GMT

Here's another fun demographic fact uncovered by the new Census Bureau report: not only are American whites of European descent having less babies, but Hispanics are having more. With 2.3 kids per mom, Hispanics are having more children than other ethnic group in the U.S. Still, Hispanic women today are having less children than their mothers did, mirroring the nationwide trend of reduced fertility.

High birth rates among minorities combined with immigration mean that by 2042, whites will be a minority group in the U.S. While the African American population is projected to remain pretty constant, Hispanic and Asian populations will double by 2050, to 30 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

Perhaps we Americans will be forced to learn a language other than English after all. And we were doing so well getting every other population in the world to speak our Mother Tongue....

Photo: arlingtonva/us

Motherhood? I’ve Got Other Things to Do

Earthquake exemption: Does China's one-kid per family policy still apply?

Brett Singer — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Slate answers a very legitimate, and extremely sad, question regarding the recent earthquake in China. Basically, China has a policy where each family is only allowed one child, in order to keep population growth under control. But many of these families have now lost that child in the recent horrible tragedy. Can they have another?

According to Slate, yes they can. Depending on where in China the family resides, "Mothers are allowed to have a second child if the first one dies or—in many cases—if he or she has a major disability." Some can also have a second child if the first one is a girl. (How Ancient Sparta of them.)

Aside: the "one child per" policy also may have played a part in the abandoned Queens baby case, according to one of our commenters.

image:CNN.com

Children of Men (for real): Japan's Child Pop. Drops for 27th Straight Year

Cole Gamble — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:00:00 GMT

While we in America like to celebrate the 5th of May by depositing large quantities of tequila into our stomach (just for safe keeping before we deposit said tequila in a toilet later that night), in Japan they celebrate Children's Day. Thing is, at the rate they are going, pretty soon they won't have anything to celebrate.

The population of children in Japan has declined for the 27th straight year in a row. The reasons are thought to be a product of modernization. I.E: as a country becomes richer, birth rates tend to decline. Yes, it's a stereotype but it is true, the poorer and less educated a population, the more kids get popped out.

The effects of such a decline in Japanese youths could potentially be disastrous. Just look at the fears we have with our own withering Baby Boomer generation. Time will come when the infirm and incapable will outnumber the vital and capable, and when it does, look out. It's simple math: when there are more people who are taking out of the system than there are people putting in, well everything kind of goes to hell.

The impact of this youth drain could prove dire for Japan, but at least they'll get watch us fall apart first. Maybe they can learn something from us as our capital building is transformed into a Denny's and the a street gangs of elderly men take to mugging innocent people for their precious Viagra money.

Photo: www.ctv.ca

Trendwatch: Ever More Babies

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:37:00 GMT

Did you have a baby in 2006? Here in the United States? You're so trendy!

Turns out, the product of your 2006 childbirth might be the beginning of a new baby boom. Now, cautious as demographers are, they're only calling it a "boomlet." But still, they may drop the suffix if a few more years of dramatic rises in the country's birthrate continues. Here's what's going on:

From AP:

The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births. But non-Hispanic white women and other racial and ethnic groups were having more babies, too.

This possible new boom is just in time (actually, a little late) for the old baby boom, which experts say started in 1946 (the first baby boomer retiree applied for Social Security benefits in October this year). Let's get those 2006-ers raised and in the workforce so they can pay for their fore-boomers who are going to live right up until the end of time (and someone needs to pay for them). In any case, the 2.1 birthrate means the population is now replacing itself -- an economically good thing.

Why the sudden boom(let)? There are good and bad reasons:

... a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.

There are cultural reasons as well. Hispanics as a group have higher fertility rates — about 40 percent higher than the U.S. overall. And experts say Americans, especially those in middle America, view children more favorably than people in many other Westernized countries.

"Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, `Let's have another kid,'" said Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University.

You know how it looks like all of Hollywood (and Babble) is giving birth (thereby keeping Famecrawler alive in perpetuity)? It's actually Hollywood following the baby trend, not setting it.

Now, you didn't answer me. Did you have a baby in 2006? Well, where are my manners? A very belated and heartfelt congratulations!

Should You Only Have One Baby to Save the Planet?

Kelly Mills — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:57:00 GMT

How green is your uterus? There's a thoughtful argument on Slate in favor of Americans limiting their families to one child in order to do right by the planet. The author says that in practical terms, having only one child cuts your carbon footprint in the most effective way. Of course, environmentalists have been leery of making the population control case for a number of reasons: the results of mandatory family control policies in places like China, and the fact that the birth control argument could alienate moderates or right-leaning folks who could see it as anti-life. I would guess that even the fact that some of our most eco-popular folks have big families (hi, Gores) might discourage this. But I actually think that in setting up argument and counter-argument, those who advocate for this kind of environmentalism might be missing an important factor.

While Americans might be attached to their cars and convenience, these bonds are really about pragmatism and willingness to make sacrifices. But the decision to have children is almost wholly and utterly emotional. I mean, in practical terms, it probably makes sense to have none or one--most of us generally don't worry about having enough farm laborers or progeny to run a family business. We have children because we want them (or because we get pregnant with them and don't want to take steps to terminate the pregnancy.) It's an emotional desire, and a desire like almost no other, and while many are truly passionate about protecting the environment, I would venture to guess that denying the longing for two or three kids would be more than some could bear. And I just understand that.

I only have one child, and while I'd love to say it's about environmentalism or practicality, the truth is since my kid was born, I haven't felt the longing for another. If I ever do, I'll see what happens, but honestly, I would not tell someone else to make with the one-kid family because it just doesn't feel right to me. And as I've offered before, if you've got two rugrats, you can totally have my one-kid carbon credit.

Update: Just to add a li'l more non-emission-causing fuel to the subject, here's an online discussion with the author of the Slate article.

Enter, Impregnate and Win!

Madeline Holler — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:30:00 GMT

Couples in the central Russian region of Ulyanovsk will be given time off work today to go make baby.

Those who wind up pregnant after this state-sanctioned booty call may qualify to win a UAZ-Patriot, which is a locally made SUV (buckle up!), provided mom gives birth on June 12, Russia’s national day.

Winners of the grand prize (the SUV, silly, not a healthy baby) will be selected based on “respectability” and “commendable parenting.” Like working it for time off and a four-wheel drive?

Ulyanovsk’s mayor started the incentive program a few years ago to build up his town’s dwindling supply of people. Last year, 500 couples signed up for the day off to get it on, increasing the local population by 78 (and one UAZ-Patriot).

Break out the Stoli! We’re having some babies!

Big Families: Are You Eco-Bad?

Kelly Mills — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:02:00 GMT

A report from the Optimum Population Trust, a group that advocates for population control for environmental reasons, argues that families should limit themselves to two children so as not to leave a giant, muddy carbon footprint. The group believes that Britain should advocate for a voluntary stop-at-two-kids program so that precious resources aren't being used up by big clans, and that doing so would send a message to the rest of the world that Britain is committed to environmental preservation.

This article goes on to interview three large families, who feel a little defensive at being called out for being resource-wasters. For example, one mom says, "In big families there is a natural tendency to green living: her family lives so frugally that they probably aren't using up any more of the earth's resources than a more profligate family with just two kids."

While I'm all for saving the planet (controversial stand, I know,) I do think the two-kids argument ignores one interesting factor: many people with large families did not, um, plan to have so many kids. But even if you do want three or five, I'm leery of taking some hardass stand on that. Tell you what: I'll just stick with the one kid I have, we'll pretend it's for environmental reasons (rather that the truth, that once I got the one out I thought, "Phew, no way I'm ever doing that again") and you can have my kid credit. Maybe we could trade kid credits on some kind of eco-ebay-marketplace! I'll take a latte and a backrub from a strapping young lumberjack for my credit. Bidding opens now.