Women Have Good, Instinctive Reasons to Delay Childbirth These Days

Originally published, in a longer version, by RH Reality Check.

New CDC birth data out last Wednesday confirm that the U.S. birthrate dropped one percent to reach an all-time low in 2011, extending the downward trend begun with the recession in 2008. Put down your knee-jerk fears about smaller population, though: This drop is a good sign, foretelling not a diminished but a strengthened workforce down the line.

What we’re seeing here looks not so much like a big decline in the number of women who have kids over their lifetimes, or even necessarily in the number of kids they have, as like the time-lag effect of postponement [of having children]. The big switch in the timing of when women have children was underway long before the recession of 2007 (see this CCF fact sheet), but the recession intensified it. We can see that (in the chart to the right) in the rising birthrates for women ages 30 to 44 and the falling rates for women ages 15 to 29.

Already some women who stayed on the maternity sidelines in their 30s in the early part of this economic decline have jumped back into the game. Though the increases to date are not yet sizable, the scene is set for a flood of later mothers down the line. The national birth timing dynamic is changing fast.

In their 25 percent rate plunge in just four years, young women today are enacting a sped-up version of the trend to delay kids that’s been growing since the introduction of hormonal birth control in 1960. Like millions of women before them, these citizens are refraining from having a first child early on, or sometimes a second, and choosing instead to invest in their educations and to build up their credentials at work. They may not be changing the number of kids they’ll have overall by much, but they are changing the economic circumstances into which those kids will arrive, for the better. Not all recession effects are problematic.

This sped-up delay effect has at least three overlapping causes. Most obvious is the recession/slow recovery (recessions are historically powerful contraception—before the Pill, the lowest recorded birth rate occurred in 1936). If people don’t feel they can afford kids, they become more vigilant about controlling fertility. A second cause lies in recent improvements in birth control methods and access, which make it easier to be vigilant.

A third springs from the fact that not only did young women refrain from having kids for the downturn, but because they didn’t have kids quite a few of them were able to complete high school and enroll in college. That put them on track for perhaps a decade of further delay (the time required to finish the bachelor’s degree and maybe grad school, and then to establish at work) rather than just a year or two.

This will have a major positive effect on the workforce, both because these women will be more educated themselves, and their kids—when they do have them in a few years—will be more educated too. While the current birth-rate drop responds to and signals the continued slow economic recovery, it is also itself a positive sign of economic growth to come.

This is not what you’ll hear from the pro-natalist conservatives, who have been pushing higher birthrates, both directly through pledges to support “robust childbearing” and stated concerns that we won’t have enough workers to fund Social Security for retiring boomers, and more covertly through a coordinated effort to cut access to birth control and abortion. Though this is not the way they’re discussed, the most direct effect of cuts to birth control and abortion is to raise birthrates.

Since poor young women would be most affected by such cuts, and many initially middle-class new moms would be pushed into poverty, the anti-birth-control push would lead to more low-skilled workers, including both the babies and more immediately the newly created parents. That’s just what the nation as a whole doesn’t need, when even in a down economy many U.S. jobs go unfilled for lack of adequately skilled applicants. When the recovery fully kicks in, the skilled-worker shortfall will only increase if we push our up-and-coming workforce off the educational track and into early parenthood.

Advocates push this agenda as “pro-life,” but since its major effect is to impoverish whole families, it resonates as a “traditionalist” move back to days in which women knew their “place.” This brings out many older and conservative voters and, by denying access to birth control and abortion, pushes young workers (male and female) into poverty, where they are much more unlikely to vote. Since early births keep women out of the paths to education and cultural power, this kind of pro-natalist agenda reinforces old power networks.

When women control their own fertility, the world does change, with big gains for women, their families and society. College-educated women gain on average 12 percent in long-term annual earnings for every year they delay kids. So a woman who has a first child at age 30 earns roughly twice as much for the rest of her career as she would have if she’d had her first child right after graduation, at age 22. Steadily growing numbers of women have figured out through deduction and observation that delay makes a lot of bottom-line sense to families.

Delay also serves women as a shadow benefits system in our family-unfriendly work world, making it possible to climb the ranks at work before kids and then use your established clout to negotiate your own deal when the kids do arrive. Delay also makes possible the trickle up of women into policy-making roles in business and government. Only when female citizens control their own fertility do they achieve critical mass and win a voice in the way society is structured. The combination of the ongoing intentional trend to delay and the recession-born delay effect will speed up that trickle up, leading to positive outcomes for kids, parents and women overall.

The 2011 birth data tells us young women are not interested in that road back to the old ways. They want good lives for themselves and their families, and they are working to realize that hope by putting babies on hold.

(All data from CDC Birth Data Reports for 2007-2011.)

 

Comments

  1. Women may be able to control their fertility, but not their infertility. Fertility declines dramatically between age 30-44, consequently decreasing the birth rate as so many women, ill-informed of their poorer chances of conceiving naturally at this age, find themselves struggling to achieve what may have been easier a few years earlier. The lack of insurance coverage for fertility treatments also contributes to this. Fighting infertility is expensive, time-consuming, and absolutely not a guarantee of anything, as is adoption, which is totally the opposite of the easy fix too many believe it to be.

    By putting family-building on hold, more and more women will find that they have lost any chance at all to have more than a family of two.

  2. Yes, humans are animals. However, women make huge life decisions (when empowered to make choices) by evaluating their situations and thinking rationally. Can someone prove women rely on instinct for these decisions as the title suggests?

    • My question too! If you click on the original article link at top, you get the full version of this piece without the word “instinctive” in the title.

  3. April, this is a great point. In making her decision to become a mother at age 40, my friend was suddenly inundated with facts about her odds of success which her doctor did not discuss earlier. Having all the information sooner would have saved her $50K in debt for fertility treatment. Good luck paying for college!

  4. Certainly there are other risks involved with delaying child-birth, but it is something you can prepare for and learn about beforehand. Hopefully one would use that additional education to inform themselves about both pros and cons.

    I recommend to all of my career-driven friends that they chose to freeze eggs as soon as it is a financial option if they plan to delay until middle age (40-50). Frozen eggs do not age and when implanted do not have any additional risk of mental handicaps.

    • Freezing eggs does not guarantee any will survive the thaw, or fertilize, or implant after being transferred. Eggs are not ‘implanted,’ embryos are transferred.

      Why would you recommend invasive, expensive procedures to anyone when you do not have even a basic knowledge of the process involved? It’s not as easy as going to an office and having some eggs removed. There are weeks of injections and medication, days of recovery time, and NO guarantee of success.

  5. “Advocates push this agenda as “pro-life,” but since its major effect is to impoverish whole families, it resonates as a “traditionalist” move back to days in which women knew their “place.” This brings out many older and conservative voters and, by denying access to birth control and abortion, pushes young workers (male and female) into poverty, where they are much more unlikely to vote. Since early births keep women out of the paths to education and cultural power, this kind of pro-natalist agenda reinforces old power networks.”

    Thank you! I have been very impatient with the media lately for failing to mention the underlying “traditionalist” reasons for the legislation which would deny access to both contraception and abortion. I’m very glad to see that Ms. is speaking up about it, but I want to see more progressive broadcast media hosts doing so as well.

  6. April says: “By putting family-building on hold, more and more women will find that they have lost any chance at all to have more than a family of two.”

    That may be true. And there are women who don’t want more than a family of two; who are happier being a mom to just one child. I count myself among the moms who are happy with what I call the “done after one” choice. While there are many women who may prefer two or more children when they’re ready to be moms, there are women who choose either one child or none.

    Simply because one is born a woman doesn’t mean she “must” have children, nor does she “have to” have more than one child to be considered a family. Contrary to what the “traditionalists” may say, the decision to have only one child or no children at all is just as valid and responsible as the choice to have two or more kids. Whether to reproduce or not is a highly personal decision, which needs to be left up to each woman to privately make.

Speak Your Mind

*