May 19, 2009 9:07 AM

Baby Population Dropped Before Recession

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Did America's moms and dads see the meltdown coming before the economists?

Just before the earliest stages of the recession, there was a steep decline in the population growth of children less than a year old, newly released census figures show.

Experts have long known that with rising job cuts and home foreclosures, couples often decide the timing isn't right to have children. But the mystery here is that the pregnancy falloff reflected in the government data actually began months before Wall Street's plunge last September.

The number of babies increased only 0.9 percent between July 2007 and July 2008, a sharp drop from the record-setting 2.7 percent growth for the preceding year. The numbers hint at the tantalizing notion that America's family planners outperformed its financial planners in predicting the rough economic times.

"It's a very good question," said Stephanie Ventura, a demographer for the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's too early to know the reasons for the drop-off, she said, until demographic breakdowns become available later this year. Teen births have been driving recent increases.

Ventura said U.S. couples, who on average have two children, might have instinctively known to slow down amid early signs of economic trouble.

"They might have wanted to hold back," she said.

There didn't seem to be outwardly clear signs of trouble around the corner. During the months when these couples were conceiving babies - or were choosing not to conceive - the stock market was still rising toward its peak above 14,000, unemployment was relatively flat at about 4.5 percent and consumer confidence was reasonably high.

On the other hand, housing prices were near their peak, a pressure on young families. And in hindsight, some banking failures later identified as early signs of the recession were occurring as early as summer 2007, when gasoline costs also began to rise.

The number of births tends to drop during economic downturns. Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics show a drop in the birth rate during recessions that began in 2001, 1982 and 1973. During the Great Depression, the rate plunged nearly 26 percent in a single decade.

"The economy does matter," said Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the nonprofit Population Research Bureau. "If prospects look worse for families, they're going to be very likely to have fewer kids."

Just ask Leah Rupp Smith of Jackson, Miss.

Married nearly a year, she and her husband, a seminary student juggling two part-time jobs, would like to have a baby. But as they watch the economy continue to deteriorate, they're less than enthusiastic about becoming parents right now.

"It would just be madness to have a child right now," said Smith, a 24-year-old state worker.

Smith said she and her husband make about $60,000 per year, enough to make their mortgage payment on a one-bedroom condominium, go to the movies once a month and have friends over for dinner. But with a sick economy and day care costs running about $5,000 annually, she said it may be a few years before they buy a larger home and become parents.

Others in Mississippi apparently share her hesitation. As its unemployment rate began to climb closer to double digits, the state saw a 3.9 percent drop in the number of babies born during the year, steepest in the nation. Neighboring Louisiana was second, down 3.6 percent. All told, 13 states reported having fewer babies in 2008.

On the other end of the scale, North Dakota - historically noted for losing rather than gaining population - registered a 3.6 percent increase in the number of babies, as young workers flocked to the state's booming oil patch.

"North Dakota's economy is in better condition than some other parts of the country, and that may have had an impact," said Shannon Bradley, an obstetrician at the Mid Dakota Clinic in Bismarck. "I think people who aren't faced with economic troubles are more apt to be open to the financial decision of having a baby."

North Dakota has lost residents through the past two decades but might have turned the corner last year. As employers scrambled to fill 15,000 new jobs, the state registered a net increase of 122 new people moving to the state - "a lot for North Dakota," said Richard Rathge, state demographer.

Through the end of 2007, it was a good month if the Mid Dakota Clinic delivered 100 babies. But the numbers began to climb in 2008, and the clinic now averages between 110 and 120 births per month, said Lisa Kozel, a pediatrician. While the state's growing economy was probably a factor, a harsh Dakota winter may have helped business, she added.

"I'm sure people were probably staying indoors more," Kozel said.

AP
Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by caldwellptr May 19, 2009 8:58 PM EDT
Now if couples could only predict earthquakes.
Reply to this comment
by gaye5 May 19, 2009 5:47 PM EDT
Yep, while we are down grading the number of children we have to about 1.3 per couple, Muslims in western countries are having 8.5 per wife.. see
about ...Shocking Muslim Demographics..... on u tube
and why not, they are in welfare countries and we give money every month for every child. I dont know about how much America gives but here in Australia, NZ, and in Britain, if you have 4 or5 children your income is pretty good from child allowances, so what it boils down to is that we are giving them money to take us over.
Reply to this comment
by kbbpll May 19, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
I will consult my wife's womb on investment strategy from now on.
Reply to this comment
by hawksprings May 19, 2009 1:17 PM EDT
It was not the economy that brought about the decline in births. America has reached a tipping point in FAT, UGLY, TATTOOED, PIERCED, BADLY DRESSED, CIGARETTE SUCKING, ALCOHOLIC PEOPLE. Americans have made themselves so unattractive, they can no longer tolerate each other's company.
Posted by jmcgilvray


You have a point.
There's WAY to many fat people waddling around sucking on a ciggy.
Gross.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 May 19, 2009 12:51 PM EDT
Posted by jmcgilvray

Remove any reference to Gender, and you are then closer to making a point.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 May 19, 2009 12:49 PM EDT
"'Did America's moms and dads see the meltdown coming before the economists?"

Yes, because while the so-called economists were busy extolling the virtues of trickle down, moms and dads have been losing their jobs ever since the mid 70s.

While the bean counters were positing a "Bill Gates effect" Reagan-era jobless recovery as a substitute for genuine growth, on the ground those who weren't part of the top 15% who got richer, were steadily getting poorer.

And finally, while the banks' predatory credit practices were indeed boosting retail sales, purposely ignorant of the coming economic storm on payback day, and while the Bushbot neos were still pursuing mindless, unnecessary wars as a means of economic "growth", anyone positing that this was doomed to fail was laughed off the stage.

Now only the super rich and corrupt are laughing, and even the non-rich sycophants, like Joe the Plumber realize now that they were had.
Reply to this comment
by WayAround May 19, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
"Baby Population Dropped Before Recession"

Physical boinking was replaced by fiscal boinking....
Reply to this comment
by jwind1 May 19, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
Beleive me, most Americans have been feeling the economic pain for many years now, especially since George Bush took over the White House. The wealthy have prospered under Republican rule, but everyone else is hustling backwards. So it should be no surprise to economists that the average American saw this coming before the experts.
Posted by endrepubs at 6:28 AM : May 19, 2009

you have had same oppurtunity to be "wealthy" in this country than everyone else......why havent you? you stupid? lazy? what>?
Reply to this comment
by jwind1 May 19, 2009 11:13 AM EDT
If fewer babies means less southern white conservative trash on the horizon, then this is a good thing for America!
Posted by neoconism at 6:18 AM : May 19, 2009


proving that conservatives are responsible....libs will still have babies and expect government to support them
Reply to this comment
by omega39-2009 May 19, 2009 9:46 AM EDT
With the jobless recovery after the previous recession, the Bush administration's desperate attempts to reclassify burger flipping jobs as "manufacturing" and the downward spiral of wages even as housing and energy prices continued to climb, you didn't need to be Miss Cleo to read the tea leaves on where the economy really was, and where it was heading.
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook