Un-affordability in America is leading to fewer marriages and fewer children

From nomadic times, to the height of civilization, the most important and fundamental building block of any society is not the government, its military, or its economy, but its family structure.

We are seeing and have seen the effects of children raised in households with less than two parents, and sociologists the world over agree that a child’s future prospects are easily cut in half if their home life is fractured or in chaos while they are growing up.  And whether it is in the black communities (72% born out of wedlock in 2010), the UK overall (47.5 born out of wedlock in 2013), or the U.S. overall (40% born out of wedlock), the results of family units having less than two parents are lower literacy rates, higher chances of crime and imprisonment, and less economic productivity for the children of that generation.

As you can see from the above chart, the escalation for single parent families began to occur in the 1960’s and continues straight through the 1980’s where it leveled off between the boom years of 1990 and 2000.  However, since the start of the 21st century this percentage has suddenly jumped higher once again, and has been rising steadily leading up to the 2008 Credit Crisis and beyond.

The divorce rate in the United States appeared to peak statistically in 1980, when there existed the likelihood that more than 40 percent of the marriages made that year would end in divorce. Expressed as a ratio, 5.3 persons per 1,000 persons in 1983 were divorced; in 1950, the ratio was 2.6 per 1,000. Much of the 1980 peak has been attributed to the introduction of consent or no-fault divorce that took place in virtually every American state during the 1960s and early 1970s. As divorces became easier to obtain, the applications became more frequent.

— IC Gale Group

Yet while changes to divorce law and the consequences of feminism dictated the family structures in two previous decades, what fundamental issue is causing the current epidemic of single family homes, and out of wedlock births?

The answer appears to be economic.

A study led by Andrew J. Cherlin, professor of public policy at Johns Hopkins University, finds men and women in counties with greater income inequality were less likely to marry before having a child. The finding pertained mostly to those who hadn’t graduated from college.

Prof. Cherlin and his co-authors concluded that a lack of jobs in the middle of the labor market was the main reason these young adults were delaying marriage and moving straight to having children. The paper was published in the American Sociological Review.

— Wall Street Journal

It is both easy and correct to attest that much of the out of wedlock births occurring today are in large part due to the structure of the welfare system, which pays women to raise their children without a father figure, or secondary income stream.  And ever since the 2008 financial crisis, the number of people going on welfare, food stamps, or other government subsidy has increased by more than 40%, and where more than a third of every American receives some form of a handout from the government trough.

But spurning marriage and having children out of wedlock is not the only side of this discussion.  The fact of the matter is, Americans are actually having fewer children altogether, and this too can be attributed to the enormous cost of raising a child in an era where the purchasing power of the dollar, and the destruction of good paying jobs, have made it nearly impossible to sustain any real standard of living.

In general, the cost of child care alone, when adjusted for inflation, has climbed nearly twice as fast as overall prices since the recession ended in 2009.

— Wall Street Journal

Birth rates among American women ages 20 to 29 years old hit historic lows in the years right before and after the Great Recession, according to a new report that raises the possibility that a major shift in the ages when women tend to have kids is on the horizon.

The birth rates for women in their 20s saw a 15 percent drop from 2007 to 2012, the Urban Institute report released Tuesday found. The decrease contributed to falling birth rates for women overall, after more than three decades of relative stability.

— CNBC

So in the end, whether it is through government or elitist agendas, the destruction of religious and moral constructs, or simply a matter of economics, the facts are that the once strong nuclear family structure that made America and the Western world great and strong is deteriorating rapidly, and the current future generation has little desire to ensure that the generation that follows will be large enough, or secure enough, to reverse the eroding landscape that is the foundation stone of our society.

3 comments

  1. These changing demographics would also apply to Singapore, ranked as one of the top 3 most expensive cities to live in.

    "The fact of the matter is, Americans are actually having fewer children altogether, and this too can be attributed to the enormous cost of raising a child in an era where the purchasing power of the dollar, and the destruction of good paying jobs, have made it nearly impossible to sustain any real standard of living."

    I would add if you do have a job, it will be over 60 hours a week, and one won’t have time to raise the kids, which itself is damaging long term to the child’s development. The government doesn’t seem to care. The way I see it if you are not a multi-millionaire with a decent monthly passive income (not requiring a job) and choose to have kids, it is an act of cruelty to bring them into this world.

    And God help you if you lose your job, because your wife will apply for divorce, take the rest of what you have including the kids (claiming you are inept at taking care of them), and you’re fucked and most likely going to end up on the streets.

    "… the current future generation has little desire to ensure that the generation that follows will be large enough, or secure enough, to reverse the eroding landscape that is the foundation stone of our society."

    Those of us whose minds are not floating in Disneyland see no foreseeable future that is suitable for children. And those of us who have deeply studied the NWO (vaccines as a weapon against children, surveillance, GMOs, suppressed cancer cures, the state taking children, homeschooling over state school and preservatives) and how we are living under a psychopathic control grid will be even less inclined to bring children into this Hell.

    The full benefits of the New Silk Road will only be felt at earliest 15 – 20 years. Until then those of us who live in the real world and not succumb to social pressure of the ignorant don’t really care for what happens to the species as long as we can take care of our own toilet.

    We didn’t ask to be born into a world where we have to pay to live on it, so we owe no one anything.

  2. While these stats make a point it is the interpretation of them that rings the bell for the economic maestros that consult the operations of the Federal Reserve et al. These economic mental midgets explain the economic downturn in demand and supply on low birth rates and a lack of innovation, engineers not having enough new ideas, as the main culprit. Debt , banking and money have nothing to do with as they were taught beginning in economics 101. This may explain the open border policies that seem to abound in the west. If caucasian’s are not forming new households because they do this on a single non extended family basis and can’t afford to, then lets bring in immigrants that will, whether on an extended family living arrangement basis or otherwise. It wasn’t all that long ago that caucasian north americans often lived in the extended family situation and we may see this returning again when nature takes its ultimate course despite the axiom that you stand on your own two feet passed to following generations, as these two imperatives play against one another. That is if they can ever get their faces away from their hand helds to find a mate? I think it was Napolean who said the losses of men in a major battle would be replaced with one Paris Saturday night of revelry. We being considered "cannon fodder’ today as well as then it seems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *