The 2021 Baby Boom Didn't Last
But there were still 47,573 more births last year than there were in 2020.

After years of consecutive declines, U.S. birthrates ticked up slightly in 2021. But that pandemic baby boomlet didn't extend into 2022, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The new CDC data are based on 99.91 percent of all 2022 birth records received and processed by the National Center for Health Statistics as of mid-February 2023. They show that what some had hoped might be the start of an extended baby boom was not to be.
The number of U.S. births decreased once again in 2022—albeit less than 1 percent from the previous year. There were 3,072 fewer births in 2022 than in 2021, and 47,573 more births last year than there were in 2020.
Last year saw a total of 3,661,220 U.S. births, for a general fertility rate of 56.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15 through 44.
In 2021, there were 3,664,292 U.S. births. Following declines of about 2 percent per year from 2014 through 2020, 2021 saw a 1 percent rise in births over 2020.
There was lots of speculation—and no clear answer—as to why more women were having babies in 2021. Some believe that the rise of remote work played a role. Some suggested it was because people were flush with cash from government stimulus payments and extra unemployment benefits. Still others argued that it was just a matter of slightly shifted birth timing—people who delayed trying to get pregnant during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic having babies a few months later than they otherwise would have. The fact that the birth boomlet didn't continue throughout 2022 could support any of these theories, though it's weakest for the remote work theory since many remote working situations continued into 2022.
In any event, the fall represents an ongoing trend in U.S. fertility, which has been sliding mostly steadily since 2007. The U.S. is far from alone in this trend. Replacement-level fertility is considered to be a fertility rate of 2.1, and many countries around the world—including the U.S.—fall far short of that.
The 2022 fertility rate was 1.665 (ever-so-slightly higher than the 2021 fertility rate of 1.664). This number represents an estimate of "the number of births that a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the age-specific
birth rate in a given year," according to the CDC.
Falling fertility rates have spawned a lot of concern, and that's not totally unwarranted. But there's also a bright spot in this phenomenon: a massive decline in teen pregnancies.
The 2022 data are no exception, with the number of teen pregnancies reaching another record low.
The number of births to 15-to-19-year-olds was down 3 percent last year, to 13.5 births per 1,000 girls and women in that cohort. "Rates declined for both younger (aged 15–17) and older (aged 18–19) teenagers," the CDC reported. Since 2007, the birthrate for these age groups has declined by 67 percent and, since 1991, by 78 percent. (For 10-to-14-year-olds, the 2022 birthrate was 0.2 births per 1,000 women, which is unchanged
since 2015.)
Birthrates were also down for women in their early 20s. Last year saw 60.4 births per 1,000 women ages 20 through 24—a birthrate decline of 2 percent from 2021 and 43 percent since 2007.
Things remained relatively unchanged for women in their late 20s and women in their early 30s. The 2022 birthrate for women ages 25 through 29 was 93.4 births per 1,000 women, which represents a very slight (less than 1 percent) increase in the birthrate for this cohort and a slight decrease (down 1 percent) in the total number of births for this cohort. There were 97 births per 1,000 women ages 30 through 34, a 1 percent decrease from 2021's birthrate and essentially no change in the total number of births.
Birthrates rose for women in their late 30s and women in their 40s, continuing recent trends. There were 54.9 births per 1,000 women ages 35 through 39 and 12.5 births per 1,000 women ages 40 through 44, a birthrate increase of 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively. There were 1.1 births per 1,000 women ages 45 through 49, which represents a 12 percent rise in the number of births to this cohort from 2021–2022.
None of these changes are surprising. Young people this century have been starting families later in life than earlier generations did and having fewer children overall, too. And though we've been seeing big increases in the number of children born to women in their 30s and 40s, these haven't been big enough to totally offset falling birthrates among U.S. teens and 20-somethings.
Interestingly, recent declines in the U.S. total fertility rates aren't driven primarily by people choosing childlessness but by people with kids having smaller families.
There are all sorts of explanations for why this might be—though many fall apart when you look at actual data—and no clear answer. But one thing that's been abundantly clear is that government attempts to boost fertility rates are doomed to fail—as I noted in Reason's June cover story ("Storks Don't Take Orders From the State").
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Birth rates are down because everyone is trans now.
+1. Does this include transfurries? And, what about transhumanists?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Join this most awesome and cool online home based job and start earning everyday more than $500 per day. i made $18521 last month, this is amazing and irecommend you to join and start your money making source from home.
.
.
Now Here ——————————————->> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Not for nothing, but writing stories about children, abortion access and associated issues because one has a vagina does not make those stories somehow central to individual rights or liberties. The same is true for any ideologue who views the world through their favored issues' lenses. Case in point (again); I suppose a running count would be beneficial, but that would mean taking time to track trivial bullshit published at reasonmag.
If I can figure out how to reverse the low birth rate, so can the government, when they get serious about wanting more babies.
Step 1: increase upper class income tax rates to 100% above the upper limit of middle class, middle class income tax rates to 70%, and add income taxes to the official poor at 35%. Everyone owes either some or a helluva lot of tax on the AGI.
Step 2: figure AGI at actual income minus a deduction of $25,000 for the first child, $35,000 for the second child, and $50,000 for each child after two.
Step 3: make state-funded child care a "civil right".
Step 4: increase the output of how-to sex manuals for elementary students, because we’ll be up to our collective butts in babies to groom.
As I said – So can the government. BOHICA
Countries like the nordics and germany where children are heavily subsidized are still suffering the childlessness problem. So maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are?
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Carey is either being heavily sarcastic, or just deeply stupid. It's often hard to tell the difference. Although throwing in any reference to "groomer" bullshit does incline me toward the latter.
There are all sorts of explanations for why this might be—though many fall apart when you look at actual data—and no clear answer. But one thing that's been abundantly clear is that government attempts to boost fertility rates are doomed to fail—as I noted in Reason's June cover story ("Storks Don't Take Orders From the State").
I'll post this every time this topic comes up.
Birthgap - Childless World PART 1 (English Version)
Excellent documentary about global declining birthrates. Documentary was made an an excellent demographer. I highly recommend it.
(“Storks Don’t Take Orders From the State”).
Oh, and I'll say it again, while I agree 100% that pretty much all state interventions that have been tried across the globe to increase birthrates have failed, it seems to me that governments CAN discourage fertility.
Oh, and I’ll say it again, while I agree 100% that pretty much all state interventions that have been tried across the globe to increase birthrates have failed,
All governmental interventions that are being tried are walking hand in hand with endless preaching about overpopulation, climate hysteria, and civilizational collapse.
That’s why they aren’t working.
Cut off the ability of the doomsayers to implant their ideas in children and we’ll have a boom like you’ve never seen.
The impulse is there. What do you think all those dogs and cats are if not surrogate children?
No, we won't. Concerns that people (or at least the right people) weren't having enough kids stretch back at least as far as Ancient Rome. Their pro-natalist policies weren't very effective either, despite a lack of overpopulation doom and gloom. Time and place don't matter a whole lot, but everywhere wealthier and more educated women who have more control over their own fertility have fewer children on average. As most of the world gets wealthier and more educated, it shouldn't be surprising that birth rates are falling.
Interesting interviews in this documentary. Lots of women, aged 31, 35, 33, 30 etc., who are saying they'll worry about having kids "in a few years".
Fertility as you approach 40 is a dodgy concept-- and the fertility doctors that are interviewed in the doc say the quiet part out loud: It's not that successful when you reach a certain age, despite the marketing pamphlet that indicates otherwise.
Not only is it harder to get pregnant when you are over 40, but the risks to the mom’s (uh- I mean birth parent’s) health, including death while giving birth go way up, so does the chance that the kid will have neurodevelopmental issues, or be on the autism spectrum.
You should watch the documentary. It does an excellent job of avoiding ideological narratives, and just explores the data- then once the data is revealed, adds interviews with people who fit into the particular data-set for color.
The most interesting reveal in Part 1 (linked) of the doc is that the researcher discovered something that completely surprised him: He went going into the research expecting to find a reduction in family size. Ie, people who might have had 5 kids (In times past) would have 4, people having 4 kids might have 2 or 3, people who might have had 2 kids only had one. What he found was that there was no change in average family size. Ie, ONCE people made the decision to have kids, they're still having as many as they always did, so that left a huge question in front of him: Where are the missing children?
What he found was an explosion in "unplanned" childlessness. Starting in the 1970s, and largely coinciding with economic crises, there followed a dramatic rise in women not having any children at all, and often it wasn't planned. Even after the economic shock passed, the birthrate never recovered and only continued its downward trend.
He then goes on to interview fertility doctors because there's a background suggestion that this can be easily fixed with technology. But the fertility doctor gives a sobering reality of older women trying to have children: They have considerably fewer viable eggs, and he does this by pointing out that even for a healthy 20 year old, only 3 in 5 eggs are viable. That drops dramatically after age 40.
What he found was an explosion in “unplanned” childlessness. Starting in the 1970s, and largely coinciding with economic crises, there followed a dramatic rise in women not having any children at all, and often it wasn’t planned. Even after the economic shock passed, the birthrate never recovered and only continued its downward trend.
What if the economic shock didn't exactly pass? The cost of living really never went back down after the 1970s, and has, since the 1980s, required a household with two working parents to have any sort of real money and means.
Another element, families in the 70's and before tended to cluster more. Grandparents were near and played a role in raising the kids. They were available to help watch the kids when the parents worked and offered a different perspective of guidance than their more day to day focused parents. Latino culture had a very strong, multigenerational family dynamic. That too has changed.
I wonder if he shouldn't try adding his graph to these ones:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
An interesting thing is that both Japan and Germany were inextricably attached to US monetary policy post WWII for obvious reasons.
Fun Fact, Mr. Megan McArdle's (nee Suderman) wife is in this.
Suggested Mean tweet: Perhaps having children might have made Suderman *checks notes* look like a Republican.
Another fun fact: Nigeria will have a larger population than China in 2100 if trends continue. Not because Nigeria will explode in population, but China will shrink.
An interesting point that hasn't been explored much is the role that inflationary policy makes on populations. We know for a fact that inflationary policies lead to the outsourcing of manufacturing. As inflation works its way through the economy, americans are incentivized to send their dollars overseas where the purchasing power has not yet been eroded.
The cost of raising children is also drastically effected by inflation- especially when the government tends to target its inflationary policies on family expenses. What are the biggest expenses for parents? Health care, Housing and College. And the government's "free money" policies encourage these costs to rise far faster than other costs of living.
It’s rich to hear prog women complain how they want to have more children if only the state were to pay for them.
What do they think this is, Russia?
These are mostly women in their late 30s-early 40s who spent their prime childbearing years building their careers and/or living out some sex and the city fantasy of hookups. But rather than admit they should have settled down and started a family when they were younger , they have to blame the capitalist system for not being able to have as many kids as they want.
The Russian population is crashing even harder than ours.
Thank God. The last thing this country is more millennial and Z spawn.
It's like I keep saying: Having fewer children is a sign that our I.Q.s are going up. 🙂
Just wait until we finish de-gendering and sterilizing everyone in the 8-18 cohort, and establishing abortion quotas.
Good news is buried in this article about teen pregnancy rates. In my community, the rates were rising during 2007 and for many years after that. However, my daughter has a 2021 child that was planned before Covid and now another planned, but oops, now twins for Halloween. She is 29, so no fertility boosters are involved. The medical system is broken and way too expensive for the middle class, plus the cost of Day Care is way beyond the ratio/cost that I had to pay for hers. The Federal government can not control this without cultural changes. The people have to decide from the bottom up whether they are willing to pay the cost of lower fertility rates. However, we have known this problem existed since at least the 70s. The corrupted debate over Social Security is the centerpiece of this topic. Yet we as a people have failed to responsibly deal with it.
Since AI is going to replace everyone's jobs, this is a timely trend.
radiated balls from cell phones in pockets kills sperm