As if reading from the same script, on Sunday, October 13, both the New York Times^[1] and The Wall Street Journal^[2] ran feature-length articles on the plummeting birth rates of the advanced Euro-American and East Asian nations. This phenomenon has been known for some time and continues to grow. Why is it a problem? What are the causes? What are the solutions?

Where have all the babies gone?

It is mathematically obvious that to keep a population constant, women need to have – on average – slightly over two children per mother. (A slight excess takes into account children that either die before reaching reproductive age or – for whatever reason – will never bear children themselves).

In the last few decades, most Asian and Western European countries have been well below 2.1 births per female, meaning that ultimately, when deaths begin to outnumber births, and absent sizable immigration, the population starts to decline. This has been true for some time in Russia, Italy, and South Korea, and more recently, China entered into a state of population decline.^[3]

While often portrayed as a recent phenomenon, the greatest drop in fertility happened – at least so far as the US is concerned – in the late 60s and early 70s after oral contraception and abortion became widely available. Since 1980, the US fertility rate has fluctuated around the replacement rate but has been mostly below.

In April of 2024, the CDC reported that the US fertility rate reached a historic low of 1.62 births per woman, while South Korea reported a new historic low of 0.78 births per woman.

“In South Korea, which has the lowest birthrate in the world at 0.72 children per woman, just over a million babies were born in 1970. Last year, 230,000 were.” – The New York Times

Why does it matter?

While a certain extreme anti-natalist contingent welcomes the prospect (“Save the planet” and all that), most analysts view population decline as a slow-motion catastrophe. There are economic costs as the working-age cohort becomes too small to support a burgeoning elderly population. Schools, churches, homes, and offices built to support a larger population are abandoned, and entire towns are shriveling and dying. Employers cannot find workers. When mothers have only one child, children “lucky” enough to be born face a life without brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles, and thus even cousins. The resulting lack of socialization initiates a cascade leading to loneliness, depression, anxiety, and underachievement.

Public policy hasn’t helped

“Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidized minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes. Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.” – The Wall Street Journal

There is no policy matter that politicians don’t think they can fix, and this one has drawn lots of attention. Japan has tried free daycare and paid family leave, to little or no effect.

The Journal notes that Hungary and Norway “devote more resources to families than almost any other nation,” and their fertility rates are 1.5 and 1.4, respectively – still slightly below the current US figure of 1.6. Both nations stand out for their aggressively pro-natal policies, described in detail by the Journal report, with little to show for their investment.

The Times ironically noted “that governments can change fertility rates, but generally in one direction: down.” The infamous “one-child policy” of China was ruthlessly effective in that regard. For decades after World War II, Japan and South Korea encouraged contraception, discouraged large families, and sought to make abortion easier.

Who’s supposed to have these missing children?

Current fads notwithstanding, only women of a certain age range can bear children. The fertile female population can be divided in several important ways, starting with married versus unmarried. Marriage and childbearing are interconnected. Married women are more likely to have children and are likely to have more children. This holds across all nationalities and ethnic groups.

Not all women wish to have children. As distinct from “childless,” “child-free” denotes adults who have never had children, have no plans to bear or adopt children, and have no regret over not having children. According to a study from Michigan, childfree adults are more likely to be unmarried, are equally likely to be male versus female, and are more politically liberal than parents.^[4]

In the Michigan study, only 8% of adult respondents were childless, meaning they had no children but wished they could. Various well-known factors contribute to this, particularly infertility or lack of a suitable partner. By contrast, 27% – more than a quarter of adults – were childfree: they just didn’t want kids.

Underpopulation is overdetermined

In science, the term overdetermined applies to a condition that can be explained by multiple factors, any one of which might be sufficient. There are many possible explanations for declining birthrates; any or all might be applicable.

The most common explanation for not having kids is economic. We are constantly told that the rising cost of having children is the major obstacle. Yet, this runs counter to almost all of the evidence. A declining birthrate is strongly correlated to increasing wealth on a population-wide scale. Offering financial incentives to mothers has had negligible effect. And many of the expenses associated with raising children are discretionary. One has considerable latitude in spending on schooling, housing, technology, and clothing. Yes, housing costs have skyrocketed in recent years, but you still have to live somewhere. There’s no inviolate principle that children cannot share a bedroom, yet today’s average home is 60% larger than in 1970 with fewer occupants. For those in the lowest income category, cash benefits could have a marginal impact on the decision to have children, but that’s hard to prove.

Possibly, perhaps even likely, the primary “cost” incurred in childrearing is not economic but hedonic. The expense of raising children shows up in foregone career options, restricted travel and recreational opportunities, an investment of time, and acceptance of responsibility. Many don’t care to forgo immediate gratification for the long-term benefits of parenthood. Don’t take my word for it. Take their word for it.^[5]

One explanation that attracts less attention is that the decline in birthrate is being driven by a decline in marriage. In an earlier era, this would have been self-evident. But in the aftermath of the sexual devolution, marriage and childbearing have become so dissociated in the public mind that this seems not merely counterintuitive but radical. The Times reports how Japan, in recent years, has intentionally acted to promote marriage. They note, “Last year, fewer than 500,000 couples got married in Japan, the lowest number since 1933, despite polls showing that most single men and women would like to do so.”

In October 2022, The Institute for Family Studies published a comprehensive report on the connection between marriage and fertility.^[6] Drawing from a number of international databases, they found:

1. “The odds of marriage increase upon childbirth, and…. the odds of childbirth increase upon marriage.”
2. Later age at marriage tends to mean lower fertility, and births to unmarried or non-yet-married mothers fail to compensate for the decline.
3. In Asia, while nonmarital fertility is extremely low, marital fertility is also unusually low. Low birth rates in Asia cannot be explained by the stigmatization of nonmarital births.

The connection between marriage and fertility was bidirectional. Married women were more likely to become mothers, and unmarried mothers were more likely to marry. Yet, marriage itself is declining. Pew Research reported in June 2023 that a record-high proportion of 40-year-old Americans have never been married.^[7] Not unsurprisingly, Pew reported only a few months earlier that today’s parents rank getting married and having children near the bottom in importance for their offspring, far below being financially independent or having a career they enjoy.^[8]

Other present-day social trends lead to fewer marriages and fewer parents. Our political environment, combined with social media, tends to increase polarization between men and women so that younger adults are less likely to find a suitably-minded partner. An increasing level of LGBTQ identification among young adults is inherently anti-natal since pairings, when or if they occur, are biologically incapable of reproducing.^[9] Researchers from the Austin Institute have done a masterful job of showing how the cultural phenomenon of “cheap sex” drives both the postponement of marriage and decreased likelihood.

Summary

Marriage in advanced economies is facing a double hit due to an increasing average age of first marriage and a decreased lifetime probability of individuals getting married. These combine to have a significant adverse effect on national fertility rates. The effect is magnified by cultural messaging that emphasizes personal fulfillment without children.

Declining fertility and collapsing populations do not look or act like mere economic problems that can be fixed with handouts and tax policies. They reflect a deeper societal malaise where marriage and children are both held in low regard. To reverse population decline requires a fundamental reversal of priorities and vigorous pushback against the siren song of self-fulfillment. Genuine and long-lasting fulfillment comes from bringing life and happiness to others, as Scripture has taught from the beginning.

Children are a heritage from the Lord,
offspring a reward from him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
Psalm 137:3-5, NIV

1. Rich, Motoko. “Can the Government Get People to Have More Babies?” The New York Times, 13 Oct. 2024. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/world/asia/birth-rate-fertility-policy-japan.html. ↑

   
   

2. Dulaney, Chelsey. “Worldwide efforts to reverse the baby shortage are falling flat.” The Wall Street Journal, 13 Oct. 2024. https://www.wsj.com/world/birthrate-children-fertility-europe-perks-family-04aa13a0 ↑

   
   

3. Master, Farah, and Farah Master. “China’s Population Drops for Second Year, with Record Low Birth Rate.” Reuters, 17 Jan. 2024. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term-growth-concerns-2024-01-17/. ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   Watling Neal, Jennifer, and Zachary P. Neal. “Prevalence and characteristics of childfree adults in Michigan (USA).” Plos one16, no. 6 (2021): e0252528. ↑

   
   

5. York, Harriet Alexander, New. Rise of the Dinks: Childless, Happy and Wealthy. 12 Mar. 2024, https://www.thetimes.com/world/article/rise-of-the-dinks-childless-happy-and-wealthy-qcc7m00w8. ↑

   
   

6. Stone, Lyman and James, Spencer. Marriage Still Matters: Demonstrating the Link Between Marriage and Fertility in the 21^st Century. The Institute for Family Studies, October, 2022. ↑

   
   

7. Fry, Richard. “A Record-High Share of 40-Year-Olds in the U.S. Have Never Been Married.” Pew Research Center, 28 June 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/28/a-record-high-share-of-40-year-olds-in-the-us-have-never-been-married/. ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   Horowitz, Rachel Minkin and Juliana Menasce. “Parenting in America Today.” Pew Research Center, 24 Jan. 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/parenting-in-america-today/. ↑

   
   

9. Andrew, Scottie. “More US Adults Identify as LGBTQ Now than at Any Time in the Past Decade, a New Poll Says.” CNN, 17 Feb. 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/us/lgbtq-population-increase-gallup-cec/index.html. ↑