- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Inability to afford homes and essentials pushed birth rates to record lows
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:47 pm to UltimaParadox
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:47 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
With basically no job prospects and people unable to afford housing. People moved to high density living situations and permanently put off having families.
Almost 1 in 3 women did not give birth through age 34 due to poor economic factors.
EDIT to help people
Obviously I am referring the era right after the great depression. Clearly the US has been in this situation prior to modern times where birth rates were in free fall
Would love to see the scientific method applied to this or was a presupposed postion used and the data shoehorned to fit
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:16 pm to UltimaParadox
I see.
I wonder if women between, say 25- 45 have remained closer to constant over the past century + while babies born to teenagers and girls 20-24 has continually fallen ?
When I see people mentioning third world countries still having high birth rates. I immediately think of the sky high teenage birth rates in those areas.
I wonder if women between, say 25- 45 have remained closer to constant over the past century + while babies born to teenagers and girls 20-24 has continually fallen ?
When I see people mentioning third world countries still having high birth rates. I immediately think of the sky high teenage birth rates in those areas.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:21 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
I guess developers must feel there isn't enough money in it or they aren't able to build such homes due to zoning/covenant restrictions.
Or people today are dumbasses and will go into huge debt to have it now. So that’s what they build.
Same with cars.
Today’s culture of have the best now is their own worst enemy.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:28 pm to Kolbysfan
quote:
True but the powers that be whom started the WEF and European Union were around since WW2 pulling strings.
Apparently, Q was around as well.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:51 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
Why are we talking about pre WWII fertility rates today?
Majority of posters don't read anything but the title.
So it's pretty interesting to see all the replies that have no context to the data being presented.
That being outside of the baby boomer generation outlier. Birth rates have been declining since 1880.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:52 pm to wm72
quote:
When I see people mentioning third world countries still having high birth rates yiu immediately think of the sky high teenage birth rates in those areas.
Yeah I think that's a lot of it.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:54 pm to UltimaParadox
I’d like to see the data of children that lived past 5 years old since 1880. I would imagine they had more kids 150 years ago because they kept dying.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:57 pm to kciDAtaE
Yeah the question is whether more people in world history are declining to have kids at all
(Yes)
(Yes)
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:09 pm to weagle1999
quote:
How many people should live in Tennessee? 70 million? 1 billion?
Population should grow 1% a year. So P(x)=P(1.01)^x
x= years from now
P= today's population
You're welcome to do the math and figure out the answer yourself.
The obvious answer is 350!
Posted on 8/15/26 at 5:07 pm to UltimaParadox
It's variable and goes in cycles. Yet our politicians overreact and think we need massive immigration (Europe and Canada are the same).
Popular
Back to top

0







