Will the Recession Inspire a Baby Bust?

June 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print

On Slate's The Big Money, author Lauren Sandler argues that there is an overlooked line of business blossoming in the recession: The birth control industry. She reports that sales of condoms and morning-after pills are rising, along with interest in vasectomies. Since a single child born to middle-income parents costs, on average, $11,000 a year for the first couple years of his life, one can understand parents' reluctance to procreate.

But the reality isn't quite so simple, and Sandler overlooks some of the more rigorous work, done by economists, that suggests the relationship between recessions and babies is a murky one at best. One National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that while an increase in the unemployment rate leads to a decrease in fertility, once the effect of the divorce rate and proportion of young marriages is subtracted out, then the higher unemployment rate actually is associated with increases in fertility. One possibility is that women who get laid off, or find themselves under-employed, decide it's a good time to have a baby because they have more time to care for it.

Even those who are scared by the cost in such a tight economy will likely just put off having children, and not cancel their plans altogether. Whether or not that decision to delay having another child results in fewer kids depends heavily on how long the recession lasts -- something that is yet to be determined. 

But that doesn't mean that those who do decide to have children won't find a way to do it more cheaply, because many parents tend to buy more than they need to. A recent survey from the classified ads site Kijiji found that parents of newborns spend upwards of $2,500 on baby gear alone, much of which they end up not using or using only briefly. And a different story posted on Slate featured a 29-year-old woman who feared she wouldn't be financially ready to have children for at least another decade, the amount of time she figured it would take for her and her husband to be able to sell their two-bedroom condo and move into a single-family home. She seemed to think such a house was a prerequisite for having children.

If the recession doesn't have the power to put a significant dent in the fertility rate -- and the NBER paper suggests that it doesn't -- then perhaps it could put a damper on the out-of-control spending sprees that seem to accompany so many births. 

Tags:
personal finance

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I was talking with one of my older friends, he's in his mid to upper 30s whereas I'm in my mid 20s, and he said if having a child is a priority, you find a way to make it work. He and his wife live on ONE income in New York City, Sure they live in a gentrifying neighborhood, eat in a lot, and only go away once or twice a year, but it means their child has a full time stay at home parent and that's important to them.

veronica of NH 8:39AM June 10, 2009

A child born today is highly unlikely to die in a world with twice the population as today, especially if he lives to 2100. The UN and demographers in general are projecting that the world population will peak at about 9 billion at the middle of this century and then begin to drop dramatically. Why? Because fertility rates world wide are plunging. The total fertility rate (TFR) is already below replacement rates in the developed world and are dropping dramatically in almost the entirety of the remainder of the world (with subSahara Africa being the most notable exception). The primary reason why population continues to rise is increased longevity. In Russia and Japan, populations are dropping already. The same will become true in the EU as a whole during this decade. Population growth in the US is primarily the result of increased longevity, immigration and above-replacement rate fertility among immigrants and their children. All other Americans have below-replacement rate fertility rates, in line with the rest of the developed world.

It's well past time for us to get the facts straight on world demographic trends and stop acting on out-of-date information.

GL of AL 9:55AM June 05, 2009

but the fact is that kids born today may live to the year 2100 and see an earth then with perhaps twice as many people on it.

The gradual erosion of the "middle class" in America is predicting that that is going to be a more difficult world in America and probably everywhere.

The best thing may be for men who are not ABSOLUTELY SURE that they want to (and are financially able to) devote decades to good and sufficient child rearing to go ahead and get a vasectomy now. Imagine, for instance, that say HALF of the unplanned babies and say HALF of the abortions could be prevented this way. Would that not be a good thing for everyone?

In my case, I have one great marriage, one wonderful child (age 35), and a vasectomy since age 22. We have never been sorry.

Muser of NM 11:08AM June 04, 2009

Alpha Consumer

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, is the author of Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back. Send her your personal finance questions.


advertisement

advertisement