U.S. fertility: Baby-Boomers did not replace selves

U.S. fertility fell below replacement level with the first of the “Baby-Boomers”, and has not recovered. I present the data below. It was even more dramatic in Europe, I understand.

Question: Is a sub-replacement Total-Fertility-Rate really “what people naturally want”, if they can control it? Or is there something else going on here? This is a curiously-ignored problem in mainstream discourse.

Lifetime-TFR : Year of Birth of Woman (USA, whites)
2.73 : 1910-1939 (avg.)
2.74 : 1939
2.65 : 1940
2.55 : 1941
2.44 : 1942
2.34 : 1943
2.25 : 1944
2.19 : 1945
2.12 : 1946
2.06 : 1947
2.00 : 1948
1.97 : 1949
1.93 : 1950-1960 (avg.)

Full listing and documentation below–

Note: Data is as of Jan-1-2006. 1960-born women are the youngest we’ll have final-fertility data for. (They’d be 45 on Jan-1-’06, the end of their reproductive lives. [See also note-#2 below]).

Lifetime TFR for U.S. white [see note-#1] women, by year of woman’s birth
[Source, table-2].
1910 2.2327
1911 2.2528
1912 2.2705
1913 2.3035
1914 2.3483
1915 2.3954
1916 2.4290
1917 2.4709
1918 2.5059
1919 2.5881
1920 2.6473
1921 2.7039
1922 2.7352
1923 2.7844
1924 2.8390
1925 2.8763
1926 2.9044
1927 2.9323
1928 2.9656
1929 3.0100
1930 3.0443
1931 3.0707
1932 3.0745
1933 3.0762
1934 3.0588
1935 3.0148
1936 2.9565
1937 2.8853
1938 2.8171
1939 2.7371
1940 2.6469
1941 2.5470
1942 2.4366
1943 2.3399
1944 2.2499
1945 2.1854
1946 2.1173
1947 2.0591
1948 2.0035
1949 1.9695
1950 1.9421
1951 1.9227
1952 1.9118
1953 1.9118
1954 1.9183
1955 1.9250
1956 1.9291
1957 1.9365
1958 1.9499
1959 1.9634
1960 1.9712

NOTES
— Note-#1: These figures are not for “White non-Hispanics”. Later birth-cohorts in this list are boosted by Hispanic presence. Ex.: In the prime fertility years for 1960-born women (1980-1995), USA’s white-non-Hispanic TFR was 1.87 — but Final-TFR is listed here as 1.97.

– Note-#2: [Technical, very boring, be forewarned] The table is ambiguous and can be misleading on the year of birth of each cohort, unless one is very careful. Some CDC pencil pusher was either lazy or confused himself when creating this file and messed up “Cohort Birth Year”. Birth-Year should be -1 across the board. Consider: The table says cohorts are measured by the “Exact age of women as of January 1 of year”. So, for the 45-year-old cohort measured in year 2006, any woman born on Jan.-1-’61 will qualify, but those born Jan.-2-61 will not. 364/365ths of the time, a woman in the 45-y.o.-cohort in 2006 will be born in 1960, not 1961 as mistakenly written on the file. (Phew.)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to U.S. fertility: Baby-Boomers did not replace selves

  1. red says:

    Wow….that is ironic, or poetic, something, I dont know what: the time the USA won the war, girls born _right then_ were the last to make natural population growth.

  2. ML says:

    And breeding peeked during the Great Depression, naturally:

    1929 3.0100
    1930 3.0443
    1931 3.0707
    1932 3.0745
    1933 3.0762
    1934 3.0588
    1935 3.0148
    1936 2.9565

  3. Hail says:

    ML: Note that those are the years of birth of the women. So, a random 10,000 American women born in 1936 had 29,565 babies in their lifetimes. 1936-born women were of motherhood age mid-1950s to mid-1970s.

    red: It is ironic: Those born with the “Baby-Boom” produced a Baby-Glut when it was their turn.

  4. Pingback: Ancestry for Citizenship? (USA) | Hail To You

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s