A recent study published in Scientific Reports suggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.
The data revealed a pronounced change in how political beliefs relate to family size. For individuals born in the early 1900s, political orientation had almost no association with the number of children they had. However, beginning with the cohort born between 1943 and 1947, a massive divergence emerged.
“We expected these results, but not to such a dramatic extent,” Fieder told PsyPost. From the mid-century cohorts onward, individuals with right-wing political views maintained birth rates at or slightly above the replacement level. The replacement level, typically considered to be 2.1 children per woman, is the rate needed for a population to replace itself from one generation to the next without immigration.
In contrast, the birth rates of left-wing individuals dropped sharply, falling well below the replacement level in the more recent cohorts. The authors noticed this drop aligns with historical changes in family planning. “We found that the gap began with the introduction of modern contraception,” Fieder said.
I 100% do not want to be responsible for bringing new life onto this fucking planet. I’m already fixed and my wife and I will be adopting.
I love that we have that choice nowadays. I can’t even imagine what it would have been like to always risk pregnancy every time a couple has sex.
Getting fixed wasn’t just a form of birth control either. My wife is diabetic and was about to join an experimental treatment trial but was rejected because we didn’t have kids and might choose to one day. Nipped that in the bud and now she’s in and doing much better.
Love to hear your wife was able to get into that trial and she’s doing better!!
This type of shit is coming through I guess and blame always goes to opposition, and running party is having dozens 🎉 I mean they running 🏃
Well this is a problem
Not one we can solve without controlling women.
I disagree. We can solve it by better supporting mothers and children societally and addressing affordable housing and economic equality.
That’s not what studies are showing.
Women do not want to have as many children as society demands. And with access to reproductive health choices and birth control, women are choosing to delay pregnancy and have fewer children.
That stuff would be good and we should better support families, but that’s not the cause of the falling birth rates.
If you don’t have a way to compare since our country is total garbage at providing said support, how would you know?
Because other developed countries arent as total garbage at providing said support.
And they can’t possibly have any other factors that would have an effect right?
If I link studies showing the different things that affect fertility and birth rates, would you actually read it?
Countries like Finland have robust social security nets and support. Their rates are falling, too. I could name a bunch of other countries that have better support for families and they are also seeing falling rates.
But I’m not going to put in the work if you’re just going to be dismissive and not read anything because you’d rather believe it’s all the economy.
Because this affects me, I’m not American
Crazy what better family supports do
https://www.chosun.com/english/market-money-en/2026/02/25/G4PCHX7R7RE4PHXM5RMJJLDOEY/
When women have access to education, career opportunities, and contraception, birth rates drop.
as high fertility and rapid population growth are likely to have adverse economic, environmental, health, governmental, and political consequences (Bongaarts 2013). Declining fertility can also yield a demographic dividend by reducing the dependency ratio, increasing women’s participation in the paid labor force, and allowing increased investments in human and physical capital…
I don’t see this as a problem. Let the birthrate fall.
I don’t see it as a problem either. Let women have the control over our bodies that we fought so hard for and let us shape our families the way WE want, not what some religious zealots afraid of immigration want.
Did you read the article you sourced?
The two-year birth rebound is linked to demographic shifts and marriage trends. The second echo-boom generation (born 1991–1995)—children of the 1964–1974 baby boomers—has entered their early 30s, a peak childbearing age. Additionally, “endemic, localized, couples” who postponed marriage during the pandemic began marrying in late 2022 and early 2023, later having children after a 1–2 year gap. Expanded marriage and childbirth incentives from central and local governments also contributed. Park Hyun-jung, head of the population trends division at the Data Office, noted, “Pandemic-delayed marriages have surged, and positive perceptions of childbirth are growing.”
However, concerns persist that the birth rebound may be short-lived. The 1996 birth cohort (691,226 people), who turned 30 this year, marks the start of a decline to 600,000 annual births, followed by drops to 500,000 in 2001 and 400,000 in 2002.
Women delaying when they have children is a huge factor.
Yes, I guess you cherry picked out these parts
The number of firstborn children increased by 12,600 (8.6%) to 158,700, while secondborns rose by 3,400 (4.5%)
Analysts attribute this trend to the “second echo-boom effect,” driven by those born in the early to mid-1990s entering marriageable age, as well as sustained government incentives to encourage marriage.
Having seen and experienced this first hand in this instance, the level of supports for new families have made a difference
It’s made a difference in combination with women delaying when they start having children due to better access to education and contraception.
That’s why it notes that this is probably a short-lived birth rebound. Because of the ages of the parents having children.
Edit:
I didn’t cherry pick it out: “Expanded marriage and childbirth incentives from central and local governments also contributed.” is in my comment. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it thoroughly.
Oh no.
Anyway.
Pretty much, in meat-space the only people ive seen who actually think this is a problem are conservative bellends or economists.
Okay, so young people are a lot more conservative than before because left-leaning people don’t have kids. Enjoy losing every election?
I’ll enjoy my remaining years and die content I didn’t add another life to this stupid meat grinder of a planet.
Which is the source of the problem. The left are too depressed
Forcing leftist women to have more children than they want sure isn’t the solution.
I don’t want to force anyone, I’m stating a clear problem
It’s not a problem. Women choosing how many children they want and when they want to have them is not a problem.
There are people who want you to think it’s a problem so they can be allowed to strip women of their reproductive rights.
Women who want to have kids but can’t afford them is definitely an issue
Then you haven’t actually read many articles about this issue. You’ve just read headlines and assumed.
40% of women don’t have kids because they can’t afford it
Just a wee bit of well placed eugenics and we can finally overcome that pesky Southern Tribe once and for all!
Well, it’s not like conservatives raise conservative kids at a one to one. How can you be sure leftist gene is passed?
No, we need to build giant breeding factories and cull the non believers in their youth!
Oh My God! I can walk again!
The left is not raising all leftist kids either. As long as it’s way north of 50% it’s an issue
Can we all just admit that Mike Judge and Etan Cohen are prophets?
Get snipped guys! It’s easy. If you’re fertile and you think you know what freedom means, you don’t.
Yes yes we all have seen Idiocracy.
Removed by mod
I personally don’t think less people is a problem. I think women should be fully able to choose when and how many children they have.
Removed by mod
We have enough resources to take care of everyone. Billionaires and the ruling class are hoarding those resources.
Of course having a kid is not liking buying a bag of crisps. Women have more access to education, career opportunities, and contraception now. They are making the educated choice to delay having children. We should be supporting women’s choices and not trying to force them to have children sooner by taking away education and contraception.
Removed by mod
You’re talking to someone who is already a mother.
I don’t really need to be guilt tripped about having children. If you support women’s rights, you support our right to choose to have kids.
Also we’re really not going to achieve having people give up on having children. It’s not going to happen. If we support women’s choices when it comes to how they want to live their lives, we can reduce the number of unwanted children and that’s good enough for me.
Removed by mod
Yep which is why the falling birth rate is not really a problem in my opinion. Let women have control over their lives and the rates will continue to fall.
It’s just not realistic to fight for every single person to refuse to have children.
We see how fucked yup the world is and don’t feel ok with it
Living in a conservative hellscape, I have so much trauma I’d never bring another to deal with this shit into the world.
As an older, this generational stuff is a hell of a thing to see.
Also, the lack of Pirates causes climate change: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/
Isnt this one of the beliefs of Pastafarians?
The data shows that belief in pastafarianism is caused by understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
Are you trying to make a point that correlation does not equal causation? Cause I have been scratching my head wondering what your comment has to do with the current discussion in this thread.
Yes. To quote the Forbes article:
So, when someone proposes a cause and effect relationship between two things - reduction in pirates causing global warming; Obama creating the global economic crisis; young people ruining American business - ask for the data that shows they’re related, rather than simply that they’re happening at the same time.
Great. It’s being posted in more places.
Hypothetical, polarized fantasy.
Every quote from the actual science is about how it is only correlation. Nothing factual or remotely concrete.
Another over-hyped nothing burger.
-
Low birth rates are a problem for capitalism, not humanity.
-
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
No? Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
When women have access to education, career opportunities, and contraception, birth rates drop.
Sure, but even then they stay above replacement. You need the economic calculus of an urbanized capitalist economy to get the shitshow seen in most of the developed world.
Affordability is only 36% of the stated reasons women aren’t having more children.
The other reasons are: still looking for the right spouse, lifestyle or career, family is still growing, and trouble conceiving.
There’s many reasons and just shrugging and saying it’s the economy doesn’t explain enough.
One could argue those other reasons are symptoms of a bad economy.
Trouble conceiving is often related to age. Ability to conceive naturally drops in women’s thirties. If a woman in her twenties didn’t think her family could support kids, then in her thirties she may find out she’s having trouble conceiving
We should stop making young people support people in old age. It drops fertility, makes the electorate older and more likely to vote for more benefits for themselves.
One example is rent control. It only decreases your cost of living if you’ve been there a long time. It decreases the supply of housing long term
Women in their twenties are delaying children for a multitude of reasons and career opportunities and education are big factors.
When given the choice via contraception and reproductive health, women have children later in their lives.
What percentage of the reason is simply a refusing to manufacture additional meat for the orphan crushing machine?
Among women under 35 today, 30% already have children, 41% say they want to have children, 15% are not sure, and only 14% say they don’t wish to have children, according to a new Institute for Family Studies/YouGov survey of 2,000 young adults conducted in May to June of 2024.
From the article that @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io linked…which I’m just now realizing is from Institute for Family Studies a fucking conservative think tank:
The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative “think tank” which, according to its website, has the expressed mission “to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education.”[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. “IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox’s National Marriage Project.”[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its “commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself – both at home and abroad – are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry.”[4]
IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as “think tanks” and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.
I mean there are many reasons, but it’s still obvious from the data that a more accommodating society (both economically and otherwise) would have more children. It’d be easy to argue, for example, that “still looking for the right spouse,” is at least partially caused by delays in entering long-term relationships until it’s financially viable, and this also ties into “trouble conceiving,” because people are expected to spend the years they’d have the easiest time conceiving advancing their careers so they can provide a decent life to their future children. It’d also be absurd to suggest the necessity of two-income households hasn’t contributed to women prioritizing their careers over starting families*. What “affordability” really means here is the proportion of women who’d be able to have more children right now if not for money; it doesn’t count knock-on effects that boil down to unaffordability. Modern urbanized societies are deeply unkind to mothers in ways that need to be untangled before current birth rates can be presented as the results of freedom.
*To be clear, this is perfectly fine as long as it’s a free choice, but clearly in most cases it’s an attempt to optimize against social and economic conditions. Current birth rates aren’t any freer a choice than those of two centuries ago; both are responses to social conditions that make one choice much more optimal compared to others.
Wow, you really linked to the Institute of Family Studies?
The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative “think tank” which, according to its website, has the expressed mission “to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education.”[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. “IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox’s National Marriage Project.”[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its “commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself – both at home and abroad – are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry.”[4]
IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as “think tanks” and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.
That’s not a credible source at all.
TIL, but also I mean, I wouldn’t trust it to interpret data or give me unbiased information but there’s only so much you can mess with in a survey. They’d also be more blatant about it if the data was doctored.
They can absolutely fuck with surveys. How questions are phrased is one way. We have no idea how they collected this data. They’re not a trustworthy source because they have an agenda to force women to have more children.
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
No? Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
Which most can’t, so they wisely choose not to when given a choice.
Not doing something because one can’t afford it isn’t a choice; women in developed countries aren’t choosing not to have children any more than I’m choosing not to vacation to buy a private jet.
We are a top 5% income US household. We don’t want to have kids because it seems like a major pain in the ass, and because we have no interest in breeding additional cogs for the capitalist machine.
I mean, you’re right and you’re not right:
Non-wealthy but not destitute and dominated women can decide to limit the number of children they have to an economically and otherwise responsible amount. That’s an ACTUAL available choice.
The aforementioned destitute and dominated women (whether due to patriarchal dictates, authoritarian legislation, or other impediments to their freedom of choice) might not have that choice, but that doesn’t mean that those WITH the choice aren’t often choosing to forego additional/any children for partly or wholly economic reasons.
That’s an ACTUAL available choice.
It’s technically an available choice, but my argument is that the consequences to not making the optimal choice are so harsh that it might as well not be a choice at all. For a somewhat absurd example, one could technically choose not to work and just be homeless, but obviously that doesn’t mean we’re free to choose whether or not to work. Freedom is a spectrum and birth rates for the working class (especially working class women) tend to be closer to “not free” than “free” on that spectrum.
PS: To be clear my intention isn’t to invalidate anyone’s choice to have or not to have children; my problem is with presenting the current situation as the unavoidable result of women’s liberation when in reality there’s a clear set of avoidable incentives leading to declining birthrates.
But choosing to not have children because they can’t afford it is a relatively new freedom women have.
The second one is entitled shit.
Yes, because women are entitled to make decisions about their own bodies. Glad you’re following along.
Exactly, but how the sentence is written implies that any woman with a choice, would choose to avoid children. I see it as discriminatory, as there are many women who freely choose to have many children.
You called women having a choice “entitled shit”.
Why are you backtracking to make yourself sound less abrasive?
What I meant is that the commenter and people thinking that women having a choice directly choose not to have children are acting entitled and it’s shit. So the opposite of what is being read out of my comment. Probably I wrote it just badly 😆
Ironic don’t you think? Lol
What? Lol
there are many women who freely choose to have many children.
Sure
I did, and am progressive as fuck. I just like kids. Had 4 then married a guy with 5. I love having a big family and the kids love the extended network of siblings. There’s room for me to do that because so many people are having none so I appreciate those people a lot, but am not among them. Raising kids was the best work I have ever done.
Thank you for this. I have the utmost respect for people who take on the care of raising children well. I only have one and it’s hard as fuck.
Bodily autonomy is entitlement, but not shit
The commenter writes that any woman would always have less children if given a choice: I don’t agree, as there are also women who want to have many children and it’s also ok. I’m all in for autonomy.
When women are given the choice, overall they choose to have less children.
The women having more children are not having enough to offset the amount of women choosing to have less.
Agreed! But your sentence has a very different meaning from the one I addressed
You’re being pedantic.
You might be right :)
-
Let me guess before I open: The intro to idiocracy?
Edit: Gotta love it
How long before we are just mass growing babies in petri dishes and decanting bottles on an assembly line like brave new world?
Who Wants to Grow a Baby?
Pilot episode.
“Joel, you’ve had some experience in this arena before. Willing to let us know where Sample 1 stands?”
“Sure, Candy!”
sip sip sip
swish swish swish
spit
“This semen has a smoky flavour, but not from the test tube it was stored in. It’s more acrid, and heavy with PFSAs than you’d expect, leading me to conclude it comes from the southern Arizona region. Historically, sibling pairing has been noted in that area, and this drop doesn’t do anything to disabuse me of the notion the donor is, indeed, the offspring of brother and sister. All in all, a fairly inexpensive affair, but still unable to justify the price tag. One to be avoided, I think”.
i think it’d be more akin to the kriegsmen being mass produced in iron wombs ala 40k, personally.
That’s way more expensive than forcibly impregnating imprisoned women. Once we put all these psycho lefties into the camps, there will be plenty of worthless childless women who can be put to work restocking our wage-slave peasant numbers. They’re currently working on the means by which to round them up. We got official “trump derangement syndrome” diagnoses in the works. We got impossibly high prices on everything, which forces people to do crimes of survival. Anyone saying any left wing thoughts can be imprisoned for life on terrorism charges. They already started doing the life imprisonment for people who have ever written down anything left of center, but they’re still working on forced identification of everyone on the internet. Once the “age verification” shit gets worked out and they know exactly who posted what, it’ll be super easy to round up all the lefties.
Eventually the only escape will be suicide. If it came down to it, I’d end things on my terms rather than be enslaved to be a baby maker.
Considering the attack on IVF, I don’t think that’s what conservatives have in mind for the solution to this supposed problem.
Yeah they clearly plan on the easier, cheaper, and more vile option: forcing pregnancy onto people via denial of access to contraceptives
Translation: people who recognize this shit sucks and don’t want to inflict it upon a child happen to be leftists.
