Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

US fertility rates drop to historic low as young adults choose against having children

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Isabella Childs

Survey participants cited not finding the right partner, a desire to ‘focus on other things,’ ‘the environment,’ and ‘financial concerns’ among their reasons for deciding against having children.

A new Pew Research Center study found that the U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low in 2023, and fewer Americans are having children than ever before. According to the study, the number of childless American adults below the age of 50 who say they are unlikely to ever have children is now 47 percent (up 10 percentage points from the same demographic in 2018). 

Pew researchers surveyed 3,312 American adults ages 18 and older who are not parents, asking them whether or not they would like to have children and why. Interestingly, the answers from the adults aged 18-49 tended to be similar, while they differed from the responses given by the adults aged 50 and older, which also tended to be similar to each other. 

There was an exception to this pattern. Respondents in both age groups pointed to infertility, other medical issues, and a partner opposed to having children as reasons for childlessness. 

According to the study report, when the respondents were asked why they haven’t had children, “[t]he top reason cited by those ages 50 and older is that it just never happened,” while “[a]dults ages 18 to 49 are most likely to say they just don’t want to have children. These younger adults are also more likely than those in the older group to point to things like wanting to focus on other things, the state of the world or the environment, and financial concerns as major reasons they’re unlikely to have kids.” 

Fifty-seven percent of the childless young adults say they chose not to have children, while 31 percent of the childless adults aged 50 and older gave the same response. More women than men under the age of 50 said that they just don’t want children (64 percent versus 50 percent). 

The most common reason for not having children given by adults aged 50 and older was, “It just never happened” (39 percent), followed by, “Didn’t find the right partner” (33 percent), “Didn’t want to” (31 percent), “Wanted to focus on other things” (21 percent), and other reasons. 

Of the older adults surveyed, 38 percent say that there was a time when they wanted children, however, a shocking 32 percent said that they never wanted children, and 25 percent said they are unsure about whether or not they ever wanted children. 

The most common reason for not having children given by adults aged 49 and younger is “Don’t want to” (57 percent), followed by “Want to focus on other things” (44 percent), “Concerns about the state of the world” (38 percent), “Can’t afford to raise a child” (36 percent), and other reasons. 

Both young adults and older adults perceive lifestyle advantages as a product of childlessness; however, fewer older adults perceive benefits, while the majority of young adults perceive benefits. Among these perceived benefits include having time for hobbies and interests, affording things they want, being able to save for the future, being successful in their careers, and having an active social life – all things respondents say are possible because they don’t have children.  

The survey results show that childless adults aged 50 and older are concerned about their future welfare. According to the study, the majority of older childless Americans worry about having enough money, having someone to care for them, and being lonely, as they age. The American population is older than ever before, and that will pose significant challenges to society in the near future. 

Twenty-six percent (26 percent) of the childless Americans aged 49 and younger surveyed in the study cite “climate change” as the reason they are not having children. However, as Elon Musk pointed out last year when fertility rates in the U.S. reached a historic low, the waning population poses an imminent threat to humanity. 

Having children makes sense – for individuals, families, and the world at large. As Lila Rose and Dr. Pia de Solenni discussed in a recent podcast episode, all generations – particularly in the younger generations – must be shown that having children is worth it for them personally as well as for society in general. 

Reprinted with permission from Live Action

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Sunday he won’t make a tariff deal with China unless its $1 trillion trade surplus with the U.S. is balanced. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called the deficit “not sustainable” and said tariffs are already driving a wave of investment back to America.

Key Details:

  • Trump told reporters the U.S. has “a $1 trillion trade deficit with China,” adding, “hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.” He insisted any agreement must begin with fixing that imbalance.

  • The president said tariffs are generating “levels that we’ve never seen before” of private investment, claiming $7 trillion has already been committed in areas like auto manufacturing and chip production, with companies returning to places like North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois.

  • On Truth Social Sunday night, Trump wrote: “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS… a beautiful thing to behold.” He accused President Biden of allowing trade surpluses to grow and pledged, “We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his tough trade stance on Sunday, telling reporters that he won’t negotiate any new deal with China unless the massive trade deficit is addressed. “We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said while aboard Air Force One.

He emphasized that while some countries have deficits in the billions, China’s trade advantage over the U.S. exceeds a trillion dollars and remains the most severe. “We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved,” he said. “A deficit is a loss. We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even.”

Trump touted the impact of tariffs already in place, pointing to an estimated $7 trillion in committed investments flowing into the U.S. economy. He highlighted growth in the automotive and semiconductor sectors in particular, and said companies are now bringing operations back to American soil—citing North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois as examples.

He also claimed world leaders in Europe and Asia are eager to strike deals with the U.S., but he’s holding firm. “They’re dying to make a deal,” he said, “but as long as there are deficits, I’m not going to do that.”

Trump projected that tariffs would add another $1 trillion to federal revenues by next year and help re-establish the U.S. as the world’s top economic power. “Our country has gotten a lot stronger,” Trump said. “Eventually it’ll be a country like no other… the most dominant country, economically, in the world, which is what it should be.”

Later Sunday night, Trump doubled down in a Truth Social post, writing, “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.” He added that trade surpluses have grown under Joe Biden and vowed to reverse them “QUICKLY.”

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X