this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026

196 points (93.4% liked)

News

38197 readers

1935 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

196

Left-leaning Americans are driving the U.S. birth decline, new study finds (www.psypost.org)

submitted 1 day ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A recent study published in Scientific Reports suggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.

The data revealed a pronounced change in how political beliefs relate to family size. For individuals born in the early 1900s, political orientation had almost no association with the number of children they had. However, beginning with the cohort born between 1943 and 1947, a massive divergence emerged.

“We expected these results, but not to such a dramatic extent,” Fieder told PsyPost. From the mid-century cohorts onward, individuals with right-wing political views maintained birth rates at or slightly above the replacement level. The replacement level, typically considered to be 2.1 children per woman, is the rate needed for a population to replace itself from one generation to the next without immigration.

In contrast, the birth rates of left-wing individuals dropped sharply, falling well below the replacement level in the more recent cohorts. The authors noticed this drop aligns with historical changes in family planning. “We found that the gap began with the introduction of modern contraception,” Fieder said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sure, but even then they stay above replacement. You need the economic calculus of an urbanized capitalist economy to get the shitshow seen in most of the developed world.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wow, you really linked to the Institute of Family Studies?

The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative "think tank" which, according to its website, has the expressed mission "to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education."[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. "IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox's National Marriage Project."[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its "commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself -- both at home and abroad -- are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry."[4]

IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as "think tanks" and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.

That's not a credible source at all.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Affordability is only 36% of the stated reasons women aren't having more children.

The other reasons are: still looking for the right spouse, lifestyle or career, family is still growing, and trouble conceiving.

There's many reasons and just shrugging and saying it's the economy doesn't explain enough.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

I mean there are many reasons, but it's still obvious from the data that a more accommodating society (both economically and otherwise) would have more children. It'd be easy to argue, for example, that "still looking for the right spouse," is at least partially caused by delays in entering long-term relationships until it's financially viable, and this also ties into "trouble conceiving," because people are expected to spend the years they'd have the easiest time conceiving advancing their careers so they can provide a decent life to their future children. It'd also be absurd to suggest the necessity of two-income households hasn't contributed to women prioritizing their careers over starting families*. What "affordability" really means here is the proportion of women who'd be able to have more children right now if not for money; it doesn't count knock-on effects that boil down to unaffordability. Modern urbanized societies are deeply unkind to mothers in ways that need to be untangled before current birth rates can be presented as the results of freedom.

*To be clear, this is perfectly fine as long as it's a free choice, but clearly in most cases it's an attempt to optimize against social and economic conditions. Current birth rates aren't any freer a choice than those of two centuries ago; both are responses to social conditions that make one choice much more optimal compared to others.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What percentage of the reason is simply a refusing to manufacture additional meat for the orphan crushing machine?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Among women under 35 today, 30% already have children, 41% say they want to have children, 15% are not sure, and only 14% say they don’t wish to have children, according to a new Institute for Family Studies/YouGov survey of 2,000 young adults conducted in May to June of 2024.

From the article that @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io linked....which I'm just now realizing is from Institute for Family Studies a fucking conservative think tank:

The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative "think tank" which, according to its website, has the expressed mission "to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education."[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. "IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox's National Marriage Project."[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its "commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself -- both at home and abroad -- are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry."[4]

IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as "think tanks" and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One could argue those other reasons are symptoms of a bad economy.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Right and I agree to an extent. The conversations around this subject always conclude the rates will start to go up if the economy is better or if the US enacts maternity leave and care.

But that doesn’t explain why other countries that have parental leave and better support systems are also seeing falling fertility and birth rates.

The connecting piece that seems to be emerging is women’s ability to control their reproductive health and access to education.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trouble conceiving is often related to age. Ability to conceive naturally drops in women's thirties. If a woman in her twenties didn't think her family could support kids, then in her thirties she may find out she's having trouble conceiving

We should stop making young people support people in old age. It drops fertility, makes the electorate older and more likely to vote for more benefits for themselves.

One example is rent control. It only decreases your cost of living if you've been there a long time. It decreases the supply of housing long term

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago

Women in their twenties are delaying children for a multitude of reasons and career opportunities and education are big factors.

When given the choice via contraception and reproductive health, women have children later in their lives.