Off the Publisher’s Desk 4-30-25

Babies, more babies, please

Making headlines recently is the declining birth rate, not only in the United States, but the whole world.

Presidential advisor, Elon Musk warned; “The birth rate is very low in almost every country. And, so unless that changes, civilization will disappear.”

According to information that I found, the birth rate recorded in 2023 was 1.16 births per woman. Back in 1960 the birth rate was 3.6 per woman.

I have read and heard on TV many things that are causing this decline including the use of birth control, more young women pursuing higher education and careers and waiting until they are in their thirty’s to marry and start a family, the high cost of having and raising children, and there are less teenage pregnancies, and that is a good thing.

Back in the 1960s and before, there were many large families, especially in our farm community.

John Brandt, who grew up in rural Glenwood City tells about the family size and the school bus route. “The bus stopped at our farm home and then stopped at couple more rural homes and it was full.” John related that there were eight kids in his family.

Every school morning a group of neighborhood kids gather at the intersection in front of my home to wait for the school bus. Sometimes there are up to a couple dozen kids, but that is neighbors, not from one family.

In a press release from Americans for Limited Government penned by Robert Romano, he writes about the cost of living. “Consumer prices are up 988 percent since January 1960. Median incomes are up from $5,600 in 1960 to $80,610 in 2023, a 1,339 percent increase. So over the past 65 years, income has increased more than prices by measures we tend to rely on.”

The suggestion has been made that the federal government institute a $5,000 baby bonus to encourage more births, but that many not be large enough to boost fertility.

Romano continued, “The average cost of a college degree is about $80,000 and the current scheme is financial aid and loan programs subsidize that. Clear majorities of men and women go to college, but maybe wouldn’t if there were no support programs, therefore the incentives have succeeded in changing behavior.

“So, if anything, a $5,000 ‘baby bonus’ now under consideration might not be large enough of an inducement to change women’s behavior. If put into place, ‘baby bonuses’ have to compete with college, career and lifetime earnings that women would get if they didn’t have children.

“If the baby bonuses can’t compete because Congress tries to boost fertility on the cheap, it could just wind up subsidizing the 3.5 million births that would have happened anyway, costing $18 billion without boosting birth rates.”

If the goal is to prevent population collapse, then $5,000 compared to what the lifetime earnings of a college-educated female would receive is not a sum worth talking about.

Romano concluded, “The $36 trillion national debt would be much, much lower today if birth rates had remained at 3.6 per woman as they were in 1960, there needs to be a cultural shift in incentives that could be beyond what Congress is politically capable of achieving. Congress should carefully consider proposals to boost birth rates provided they actually boost birth rates.”

Thanks for reading!     ~Carlton