Outside the Box

US Birth Rate Hits New Low – A Nation of Singles

December 21, 2012

Today’s OTB is not directly about the economy or investment, but rather about a key demographic shift that will certainly have a major effect on both. I have a somewhat different take on the shift than our author, my very-long-time friend Gary D. Halbert (founder of ProFutures and former business partner from the ’90s); and I will be writing about this next year. There is a significant transformation going on in my thinking about how the political world in the US (and, I suspect, much of Europe as well) impacts the economy.

The real eye-opener here is Gary’s reporting of the role of singles, rather than what is happening with the birth rate and fertility rate, although those are important too. As a surging percentage of US voters, singles are a game changer. They see the world differently in terms of their own personal security and the future – or at least that is how they vote.

To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among non-married voters – people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced – Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42.

OK, we all kind of knew that singles as a group favored Obama. But by that much? Singles are a new and rapidly rising part of the population that has not been well accounted for demographically, and that is the real import of what Gary shows us. I can tell you how many women will be eligible to vote in 2030, for instance, but there is nothing in the birth rate to predict the number of singles we’ll have. That is shifting, and in terms of voting patterns that shift (at least so far) is large.

This piece gives us quite a bit to think about as we contemplate how our entitlement programs and taxes will eventually settle out. The trends Gary describes are part and parcel of our national dysfunctionality. We want maximal healthcare and minimal taxes – at least on 98% of us. Healthcare benefits have to be paid for by someone; and that trade-off is going to be large in terms not just of taxes but also how capital formation, productivity, and employment are affected. It is hard to overstate the implications of how healthcare demographics will affect the economy.

As I write this note, the hustle and bustle of Christmas shopping and planning are going on all around me. My family will celebrate Christmas together on the 26th, so I can have all my seven kids and their families in one place under my roof.

I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a great New Year. I will be writing a short note for Thoughts from the Frontline this weekend, and then start to think about roasting a prime, rather than prime rates, for a few days.

Your almost ready for Christmas analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Get John Mauldin's Over My Shoulder

"Must See" Research Directly from John Mauldin to You

Be the best-informed person in the room
with your very own risk-free trial of Over My Shoulder.
Join John Mauldin's private readers’ circle, today.


FORECASTS & TRENDS E-LETTER

by Gary D. Halbert

December 18, 2012

US Birth Rate Hits New Low – A Nation of Singles

IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  US Birth Rate Falls to Record Low in 2011

2.  Birth Rate Needed to Maintain Current Population

3.  A Nation of Singles – Implications For the Future

4.  How Did We Become a Nation of Singles?

5.  Conclusions – How Do We Turn the Trend Around?

Overview

One of the issues I have been focused on for the last several years has been the trend in demographics in the US and in developed countries in general. Our populations are getting older – we all know that. But the reasons why our populations are getting older are not widely understood by many Americans. Those reasons include the falling birth rate, the falling fertility rate, the falling marriage rate and the explosion in singles – people who never marry.

The US birth rate fell to a record low in 2011. The marriage rate is tumbling as well. And the number of single Americans is now at a record high. The implications of these developments are troubling, not only for the economy, but also for the investment markets and the continual expansion of the federal government.  Government debt has spiraled out of control in recent years, and the demographics suggest that this trend will continue as we care for an aging population.

Today, we will look at some new information on demographic trends in the US and in the West in general that should concern you – and all Americans for that matter. This will be a continuing theme in my E-Letters in the months and years ahead. Let’s get started.

US Birth Rate Falls to Record Low in 2011

The US birth rate plunged to a record low in recent years, with the decline being led by immigrant women hit hard by the recession, this according to a study released in late November by the Pew Research Center. A falling birth rate has major implications for the economy and our aging population, as I will discuss today.

The overall US birth rate decreased by 8% between 2007 and 2010, with a much bigger drop of 14% among foreign-born immigrant women. The overall birth rate is now at its lowest level since reliable records have been kept, falling to 63.2 births per 1,000 women who are of childbearing age in 2011. That is down from 122.7 births at the peak in 1957 during the Baby Boom.

The birth rate among foreign-born immigrant women, who have tended to have bigger families, has also been declining in recent decades, although more slowly, according to the Pew report. However, according to the report, the birth rate for immigrant women plunged from 2007 to 2011. One of the most dramatic drops was among Mexican immigrants – down 23%.

Side Note: Some people confuse the birth rate (number of births per 1,000 women) with the fertility rate. The fertility rate is the average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime.  The fertility rate needed to maintain the current US population is 2.1 children born to women of child-bearing age. According to multiple studies, the US fertility rate among women is now only 1.9 children and falling.

Most researchers attribute the drop in the birth rate in large part due to the severe recession in 2007-2009.The decline could have far-reaching implications for US economic and social policy. A continuing decrease could challenge long-held assumptions that previously rising birth rates among immigrants will help maintain the US population and create the taxpaying workforce needed to support the aging Baby-Boom generation.

The fall didn’t occur because there are fewer immigrant women of childbearing age, but because of a change in their behavior, the Pew report noted, citing data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau. The Pew report concluded that “the economic downturn seems to play a pretty large role in the drop in the fertility rate.”

Although the declining US birth rate has not created the kind of stark imbalances found in graying countries such as Japan or Italy, it should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers, said Roberto Suro, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California who studies trends in birth rates. He warned:

“We’ve been assuming that when the Baby-Boomer population gets most expensive [to support], that there are going to be [enough] immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what’s happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions.”

Birth Rate Needed to Maintain Current Population

As noted above, the US birth rate has been declining slowly over the last several decades.  Today, the US fertility rate needed to maintain the current US population is 2.1 children per woman during her lifetime. Yet it now stands at only 1.9 and is falling, so we’re going backward.

The question is, why is the fertility rate falling faster in recent years, especially among immigrant women? As noted above, experts often point to the recession and financial crisis which unfolded in late 2007. The current falling fertility rate mirrors to some extent what has happened during other recessions. But in past recessions, the birth rate increased again once the economy recovered. So why is it not happening this time?

There are numerous possible answers. Let’s start with the plunge in birth rates among immigrants. Almost half of all immigrants to the United States are of Hispanic origin. But in recent years, immigration from Mexico, the biggest contributing country for many years, has dried up. For the first time since the Great Depression, the net migration from Mexico to the US has been zero.

Latino immigrants who have been here longer tend to adopt US attitudes and behavior, including having smaller families. Most experts agree that the decline in the birth rate among Mexican immigrants is probably so sharp because the rate was so high that there was more room for it to fall.

The birth rate decline among Latino women in recent years may also be related to enhanced access to birth control, emergency contraception alternatives and better sex education in schools, according to Kimberly Inez McGuire, a senior policy analyst at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

Fertility rates play a role, too. Nearly one in five American women now forgo having children altogether and, without babies, many consider marriage to be less of a necessity. People’s attitudes have followed the fertility rate. The Pew Research Center frequently surveys Americans about their thoughts on what makes a successful marriage. Between the 1990 survey and the 2007 survey, there were big increases in the percentages of people who said that sharing political or religious beliefs was “important to a good marriage.”

In 2007, there was a 21% increase in people who said it was important for a marriage that the couple have “good housing.” Thirty-seven percent fewer people said that having children was important. The other indicator to decline in importance from 1990 to 2007 was faithfulness.

In Europe, Asia, and most advanced countries, people are running away from marriage, children, and family life at an amazing rate. For example, 30% of German women today say that they do not intend to have children. In Japan in 1960, 20% of women between 25 and 29 had never married; today the number is more than 60%. It is estimated that up to 25% of all East Asian women will remain single up to age 50, and up to a third will remain childless.

Whatever the reasons, the US birth rate has fallen below the level needed to keep our population steady, much less growing. This pattern is likely to continue lower, especially as immigrants adopt US cultural norms of fewer children and smaller families. This will have growing implications for the economy and the investment markets.

Are we on the path to become Japan and Europe with even more aged populations? Demographers far and wide say yes. I first alerted my readers to this trend in 2007 when I reprinted a chilling article entitled It’s the Demography Stupid.”  It is even more chilling now!

A Nation of Singles – Implications For the Future

What follows is a summary of a post-election demographic study that was sponsored by the Weekly Standard.

Americans have been wedded to marriage for a very long time. Between 1910 and 1970, the “ever-married rate” – that is, the percentage of people who marry at some point in their lives – went as high as 98.3% and never dipped below 92.8%. But beginning in 1970, the ever-married number began a gradual decline so that by 2000 it stood at only 88.6%.

Today, the numbers are even more striking according to the 2010 Census. Almost 24% of men, and 19% of women, between the ages of 35 and 44, have never been married. If we look at the people between 20 and 34 – the prime-childbearing years – the numbers are even more startling: 67% of men and 57% of women in this group have never been married. When you total it all up, over half of the voting-age population in America, and 40% of the people who actually showed up to vote this time around, are single.

You don’t hear nearly as much about the rise of single voters, despite the fact that they represent a much more significant trend. Only a few political analysts have emphasized how important “singletons” were to President Obama’s reelection. Properly understood, there is far less of a “gender gap” in American politics than people think. Yes, President Obama won “women” by 11 points (55 to 44 percent). But Mitt Romney won married women by the exact same margin.

To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among non-married voters – people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced – Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42.

Far more significant than the gender gap is the “marriage gap.” And what was made clear in the recent election was that the ranks of unmarried women and men are now at historic highs, and are still increasing. This marriage gap and its implications for our political, economic, and cultural future ​is not well understood.

What does this group look like? Geographically, they tend to live in cities. As urban density increases, marriage rates (and childbearing rates) fall in nearly a straight line. Politicos James Carville and Stanley Greenberg put together some very interesting data on singles. Of the 111 million single eligible voters, 53 million are women and 58 million are men. Only 5.7 million of these women are Hispanic and 9.7 million are African American. Nearly three-quarters of all single women are white.

Singles broke decisively for Obama, no surprise there. Though his margins with them were lower than they were in 2008, he still won them handily: Obama was +16 among single men and +36 with single women. But the real news wasn’t how singles broke – it was that their share of the total vote increased by a whopping 6 percentage points.

That 6 percentage point increase meant 7.6 million more single voters than in 2008. They provided Obama with a margin of 2.9 million votes, about two-thirds of his margin of victory. To put this in some perspective, the wave of Hispanic voters we’ve heard so much about increased its share of the total vote from 2008 to 2012 by only a single point to roughly 12.5 million voters. It makes you wonder how the Romney handlers missed that!

How Did We Become a Nation of Singles?

How did we get to an America where half of the adult population isn’t married and somewhere between 10% and 15% of the population don’t get married for the first time until they’re approaching retirement? Jonathan Last, who did the research and wrote the article for the Weekly Standard, explains this phenomenon as follows:

It’s a complicated story involving, among other factors, the rise of almost-universal higher education, the delay of marriage, urbanization, the invention of no-fault divorce, the legitimization of cohabitation, the increasing cost of raising children, and the creation of a government entitlement system to do for the elderly childless what grown children did for their parents through the millennia.

But all of these causes are particular. Looming beneath them are two deep shifts. The first is the waning of religion in American life. As Joel Kotkin notes in a recent report titled “The Rise of Post-Familialism,” one of the commonalities between all of the major world religions is that they elevate family and kinship to a central place in human existence. Secularism tends toward agnosticism about the family. This distinction has real-world consequences. Take any cohort of Americans—by race, income, education — and then sort them by religious belief. The more devout they are, the higher their rates of marriage and the more children they have.

The second shift is the dismantling of the iron triangle of sex, marriage, and childbearing. Beginning in roughly 1970, the mastery of contraception decoupled sex from babymaking. And with that link broken, the connections between sex and marriage — and finally between marriage and childrearing — were severed, too.

Where is this trend line headed? In a word, higher. There are no indicators to suggest when and where it will level off. Divorce rates have stabilized, but rates of cohabitation have continued to rise, leading many demographers to suspect that living together may be crowding out matrimony as a mode of family formation. And increasing levels of education continue to push the average age at first marriage higher.

The question, then, is whether America will continue following its glidepath to the destination the rest of the First World is already nearing. Most experts believe that it will. As the Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz put it, once a society begins veering away from marriage and childbearing, it becomes a “self-reinforcing mechanism” in which the cult of the individual holds greater and greater allure. Jonathan Last continues:

What then? Culturally speaking, it’s anybody’s guess. The more singletons we have, the more densely urban our living patterns are likely to be. Sociologist Eric Klinenberg believes that the masses of city-dwelling singles will sort themselves into “urban tribes,” based not on kinship, but rather on shared interests. The hipsters, the foodies, the dog people, and so on. Klinenberg teaches at NYU, so he would know. As a result, cities will gradually transform from centers of economic and cultural foment into what urban theorist Terry Nichols Clark calls “the city as entertainment machine.”

The urban tribes may be insipid, but they’re reasonably benign. Kotkin sees larger cultural problems down the road. “[A] society that is increasingly single and childless is likely to be more concerned with serving current needs than addressing the future,” he writes. We could tilt more into a “now” society, geared towards consuming or recreating today, as opposed to nurturing and sacrificing for tomorrow.

So what does this mean for the economy? The economic effects are similarly unclear. On the one hand, judging from the booming economic progress in highly single countries such as Singapore and Taiwan, singletons can work longer hours and move more easily for jobs. On that level a more single society could be good for the economy. But only for a period of time, as fewer babies are being born to replace them.

And there’s another downside to this scenario of falling marriage rates and more singles in the workforce. Demographers have found that without the responsibility of families to provide for, unmarried American males have historically tended to drop out of the labor force prior to their normal retirement age, thus exacerbating recessionary tendencies in the economy. Not good.

That’s because marriage, as an institution, is helpful to all involved. Survey after survey has shown that married people are happier, wealthier, and healthier than their single counterparts. All of the research suggests that having married parents dramatically improves the well-being of children, both in their youth and later as adults.

As demographer Robert George put it after the election, limited government “cannot be maintained where the marriage culture collapses and families fail to form or easily dissolve. Where these things happen, the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone, or some institution, and that will sooner or later be the government.”

Marriage is what made the West, and America in particular, so successful. George continues, “The two greatest institutions ever devised for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to live in dignity are the [free] market economy and the institution of marriage. These institutions will, in the end, stand or fall together.”

Conclusions – How Do We Turn the Trend Around?

Over the last few decades, our culture has migrated toward tolerance. Tolerance of the decay of marriage, acceptance of divorce and cohabitation and even gay marriage in a growing number of states. This along with the trend toward having fewer children, for a variety of reasons, has put our nation at risk of a multi-decade decline in the population.

The US birth rate has always declined during periods of recession. But the birth rate has always climbed to new highs after recessions – except this time. The US birth rate has continued to decline to a record low since the recession of 2007-2009. This is alarming.

At the same time, the number of single Americans continues to climb to record highs. The rise in singles who do not reproduce is an equally troubling demographic. This suggests that the institution of marriage is in jeopardy for all the reasons discussed above.

Somehow, we need to re-instill the importance of marriage in our culture. And sooner rather than later. That may not be a panacea for a rising birth rate, but it is a place to start. Marriage is an institution which ought to be celebrated, nurtured, and defended because its health is integral to the success of our culture.

All of these issues noted today – the falling birth rate, fewer marriages, record number of singles, etc. – are very important developments for our society and cannot be adequately addressed in such a short space as this. There are also far-reaching implications for saving and investing as well. Thus, I will be writing more on these topics in the weeks and months to come.

Best holiday wishes,

Gary D. Halbert

 

SPECIAL ARTICLES

U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

Marriage Rate Falls to Record Low

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/marriage-rate-falls-to-record-low-in-u-s-pew-says/

Get Varying Expert Opinions in One Publication with John Mauldin’s Outside the Box
Every week, celebrated economic commentator John Mauldin highlights a well-researched, controversial essay from a fellow economic expert. Whether you find them inspiring, upsetting, or outrageous... they’ll all make you think Outside the Box. Get the newsletter free in your inbox every Wednesday.

Discuss This

0 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 2 of 3  < 1 2 3 > 

Richard Beard

Dec. 22, 2012, 3:09 p.m.

US population is still increasing by over 1 per cent per year and world population is projected at an extra 2.2 billion by 2050.  Because of this and increasing worldwide living standards we will have to increase agricultural productivity by a factor of 3 by then plus degrade the world even more to provide the other “essential” resources.  Under this scenario it is difficult to see a reduction in the planet’s most prolific consumers as a problem.

Phil Chubb

Dec. 22, 2012, 1:13 p.m.

As the article, demonstrates, formal marriage is increasingly obsolete and good riddance.  A consequent stable or declining US population is probably bad for the almighty economy but good for the planet. Policy nabobs should now focus not on how to grow - but how to shrink - the over-consumptive population and economy that’s laying waste to the environment.

donikagjk@yahoo.com

Dec. 22, 2012, 11:46 a.m.

thank you for intristing article (information statistce) really i am not so informated.
i will do a simple comment by logic ..not statistic
THE world popularitation ..is come because the highe standart life is the world right now couple IF is marry doesnt do more of 2 child and the life bwt the age 50-60- when was 1950-60 now is 80—up so we have decpropotion ..bwt young and old age people
NOW family be come les ..why? we have people with ghie education with diffrent intreses in carerre..TOO women’s be come independented ..and this is big problem for the family
i don’t think the religion play important role but this is one other reason too
AND the big problem is technology who change life’s and make the relationship cold ..
i like famile and to have lot children (how before grand mothers -fathers hading 6-9 children and without luxery ...so we be come more selfish in this theme
i am agree btw one couple needed tolerance not ME and YOU BUT ARE ,,OR WE so TO HAVE SUCCESSE and important when have children is good to keep tolerance ..some time is difficult ..this i know from my experianc in my life but family is beautifull with good and bad thing’s
i don’t think just USA will be come single country the rave of world go in this way ....les children les family..life be come more easy if WE thinking SIMPLE ..
HAVE A GREAT FIESTA MARRY CHRISTMAS HAPPY NEW YEAR MY BEST WISHES FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THINKING SIMPLE ..MAKE OUR LIFE SIMLPE
WHEN WE LEFT NOTHING WE TAKE WITH US ..JUST BEAUTIFULL MEMORYES

mstrvlr@hotmail.com

Dec. 22, 2012, 9:09 a.m.

I am reading a book by Emile Zola called GERMINAL, a novel about French coal miners in the late 1800’s. One of the points made repeatedly in the story is the economic value of children to the family unit. Depending on age, children in the lower income families were economically unfavorable before working age, and then essential after attaining working age. In fact, the economic viability of the family was dependent on the working age children, as was the economic viability of the parents when the parents could no longer work (supposedly the rationale for our current social security system).

Is economics a more important determinant for the birthrate than is marriage? It would be interesting to see if the number of children for the lower 10% of the income distribution exceeds that for the upper 10%, particularly if the study could cover several centuries.

fabioferrari@gmail.com

Dec. 22, 2012, 6:26 a.m.

Our society was developed on the concept that we need to grow children as a way to keep our well being during our old age. The children learn to keep either the farm, the store, or the small industry running and you could stop working every day as you get older. Nowadays the concept changed in a way that you have to develop a pension plan and accumulate capital as a way to survive during your old age. The children then are a burden as they grow and during the adulthood are free to follow the same path of developing their own pension plan. It’s easy to see that children don’t make economic sense nowadays. The interesting thing is that the old social contract was safer to survive monetary crises…

enrique mir

Dec. 22, 2012, 5 a.m.

Would be interesting to know the percentage of mature and inmature citizens, because maturity is needed for a durable marriage, I bet the percentage of inmature people has grown at the same time that birthrates have declined.
An inmature population is easy prey to statism and welfare…...

Nick Jacobs

Dec. 22, 2012, 12:36 a.m.

“How do we turn the trend around?” asks Halbert.

Why would we want to? A lot of the world’s problems flow from the fact that there are just too many people. If fewer women have babies, and those that do have smaller families, that’s great news!

As for the economic problems that might result from a declining population, they will be solved by human ingenuity. We already see signs that a smaller number of working people can support a larger number of inactive (retired) people. That’s what the high unemployment figures are telling us.

jack goldman

Dec. 21, 2012, 8:53 p.m.

One side effect of debasing the currency is prices are up 1,000% and wages are only up 500%. Why have children when parents bear all the costs except public school? Now people can choose and only idiots or people in love have children. If in love, marriage and kids are bearable. If not in love, cheating, out of love, marriage and children are impossible. Only one marriage I know is a happy marriage and they are both retired government employees, public school teachers, living in a bubble. The real world grinds marriages and families into dust. Families can not survive the caustic brew of currency debasement, public school, mass media, and all the negative aspects of this mechanical spiritual wasteland. I have two kids. Don’t waste your time having kids. Most kids hate their parents and not that many parents really love their kids. It’s a fact. Why not just have fun, avoid children, and have a great fun life self pleasuring?

jack goldman

Dec. 21, 2012, 8:47 p.m.

Anyone who gets married, buys a house, and has babies is an economic idiot, paying to subsidize the government with new tax payers. College alone is $160,000, or $80,000 if subsidized at a public school. Smart people do not get married, have babies, and pay for them. It’s a horrific financial deal with the devil. People who have babies are just raising future taxpayers at their own expense who will be fleeced by the government for profits. Families will become a thing of the past because of cost, the expenses are too high and rewards are too low. Only poor people will afford babies because their babies are subsidized.

David Oldham

Dec. 21, 2012, 7:39 p.m.

“The US birth rate has always declined during periods of recession. But the birth rate has always climbed to new highs after recessions – except this time. The US birth rate has continued to decline to a record low since the recession of 2007-2009. This is alarming”.

Yes well, I think we can regard this as a leading indicator. All things considered—the US is still in recession and likely to remain so for the forseeable future. Perhaps the author lives in cloud cookoo land ?

I guess there are positives which will come to light in due course. Less bankers and financial whiz kids will be born springs to mind. But more seriously, life expectancy will increase exponentially so these current working age youngsters will work into their 80’s 90’s in a world becoming ever more automated and jobless. That is assuming world population growth can be sustained with ever increasing pressures upon food production, failing which the problem under discussion is no longer a problem.

Have a Very Merry Christmas everyone.

Page 2 of 3  < 1 2 3 >