plunging birthrate

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that animals are hardwired to have sex. The babies popping out are a result of sex. It’s nature’s way of working. But I just don’t believe that animals plan to have offsprings.

Humans have consciousness, so we can plan to do whatever we want. We don’t need to go with the flow.[/quote]
You don’t need to go with the flow but you can’t beat mother nature either. When older you are, the less fertile you are, so even if old people want to have a lot of kids, they just physically can’t. Mothers who are in the 40s also have much higher risk if having children with birth defects. Which is why most people choose not to have children much past 40.

Those who go w/ the flow are usually teenage mothers. Those who want a lot of kids tend to start having them in the mid 20s and give their body time to recoup between each kid. Those who are more career focused and don’t want to have a lot of kids will most likely have children later.

At 25, you can have 4 kids 2-3 years apart and you’ll be done at 34-37. But if you start at 40, it’s not likely you’ll be giving birth when you’re in your 50s. Those who treasure their career wouldn’t want to give birth every year, since they would basically have to give up their career for at least a few years.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that animals are hardwired to have sex. The babies popping out are a result of sex. It’s nature’s way of working. But I just don’t believe that animals plan to have offsprings.

Humans have consciousness, so we can plan to do whatever we want. We don’t need to go with the flow.[/quote]
You don’t need to go with the flow but you can’t beat mother nature either. When older you are, the less fertile you are, so even if old people want to have a lot of kids, they just physically can’t. Mothers who are in the 40s also have much higher risk if having children with birth defects. Which is why most people choose not to have children much past 40.

Those who go w/ the flow are usually teenage mothers. Those who want a lot of kids tend to start having them in the mid 20s and give their body time to recoup between each kid. Those who are more career focused and don’t want to have a lot of kids will most likely have children later.

At 25, you can have 4 kids 2-3 years apart and you’ll be done at 34-37. But if you start at 40, it’s not likely you’ll be giving birth when you’re in your 50s. Those who treasure their career wouldn’t want to give birth every year, since they would basically have to give up their career for at least a few years.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that animals are hardwired to have sex. The babies popping out are a result of sex. It’s nature’s way of working. But I just don’t believe that animals plan to have offsprings.

Humans have consciousness, so we can plan to do whatever we want. We don’t need to go with the flow.[/quote]
You don’t need to go with the flow but you can’t beat mother nature either. When older you are, the less fertile you are, so even if old people want to have a lot of kids, they just physically can’t. Mothers who are in the 40s also have much higher risk if having children with birth defects. Which is why most people choose not to have children much past 40.

Those who go w/ the flow are usually teenage mothers. Those who want a lot of kids tend to start having them in the mid 20s and give their body time to recoup between each kid. Those who are more career focused and don’t want to have a lot of kids will most likely have children later.

At 25, you can have 4 kids 2-3 years apart and you’ll be done at 34-37. But if you start at 40, it’s not likely you’ll be giving birth when you’re in your 50s. Those who treasure their career wouldn’t want to give birth every year, since they would basically have to give up their career for at least a few years.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that animals are hardwired to have sex. The babies popping out are a result of sex. It’s nature’s way of working. But I just don’t believe that animals plan to have offsprings.

Humans have consciousness, so we can plan to do whatever we want. We don’t need to go with the flow.[/quote]
You don’t need to go with the flow but you can’t beat mother nature either. When older you are, the less fertile you are, so even if old people want to have a lot of kids, they just physically can’t. Mothers who are in the 40s also have much higher risk if having children with birth defects. Which is why most people choose not to have children much past 40.

Those who go w/ the flow are usually teenage mothers. Those who want a lot of kids tend to start having them in the mid 20s and give their body time to recoup between each kid. Those who are more career focused and don’t want to have a lot of kids will most likely have children later.

At 25, you can have 4 kids 2-3 years apart and you’ll be done at 34-37. But if you start at 40, it’s not likely you’ll be giving birth when you’re in your 50s. Those who treasure their career wouldn’t want to give birth every year, since they would basically have to give up their career for at least a few years.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that animals are hardwired to have sex. The babies popping out are a result of sex. It’s nature’s way of working. But I just don’t believe that animals plan to have offsprings.

Humans have consciousness, so we can plan to do whatever we want. We don’t need to go with the flow.[/quote]
You don’t need to go with the flow but you can’t beat mother nature either. When older you are, the less fertile you are, so even if old people want to have a lot of kids, they just physically can’t. Mothers who are in the 40s also have much higher risk if having children with birth defects. Which is why most people choose not to have children much past 40.

Those who go w/ the flow are usually teenage mothers. Those who want a lot of kids tend to start having them in the mid 20s and give their body time to recoup between each kid. Those who are more career focused and don’t want to have a lot of kids will most likely have children later.

At 25, you can have 4 kids 2-3 years apart and you’ll be done at 34-37. But if you start at 40, it’s not likely you’ll be giving birth when you’re in your 50s. Those who treasure their career wouldn’t want to give birth every year, since they would basically have to give up their career for at least a few years.

[UCGal]

[quote=patb][quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.[/quote]
I agree it’s selection bias. I think I even pointed it out.

[UCGal]

[quote=patb][quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.[/quote]
I agree it’s selection bias. I think I even pointed it out.

[UCGal]

[quote=patb][quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.[/quote]
I agree it’s selection bias. I think I even pointed it out.

[UCGal]

[quote=patb][quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.[/quote]
I agree it’s selection bias. I think I even pointed it out.

[UCGal]

[quote=patb][quote=UCGal]

I’m active on a “mom’s message board”… It’s about 70 women who all have kids born the same month/year… from 4 different countries.

On that board the number of families with 4 or more kids is greater than the number of families with just 1 child. So… based on this VERY limited data source (so really useless….[/quote]

selection bias.

It’s a group of women who want to be moms and want to have kids and
want to hang out with other moms.

The census numbers are very straightforward.

How about the tons of women who just aren’t marrying
or the ones not having kids.[/quote]
I agree it’s selection bias. I think I even pointed it out.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?

I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!

Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=][/quote]
He was 48 when we met and married, 49 when we had our first kid. He turned 50 about a month after our youngest was born.

He’s not typical to the guys I dated… Most of the guys who were in their late 30’s through late 40’s that I dated prior had either already had their kids with wife #1 and didn’t want more. (which is fine). Or were NOT the type I’d want to have kids with, even if they wanted them, because of Peter Pan syndrome. I don’t think my husband represents a broad stereotype… and I dated enough guys in my 30’s to say that. (I had the ticking bio-clock going. LOL).

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?

I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!

Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=][/quote]
He was 48 when we met and married, 49 when we had our first kid. He turned 50 about a month after our youngest was born.

He’s not typical to the guys I dated… Most of the guys who were in their late 30’s through late 40’s that I dated prior had either already had their kids with wife #1 and didn’t want more. (which is fine). Or were NOT the type I’d want to have kids with, even if they wanted them, because of Peter Pan syndrome. I don’t think my husband represents a broad stereotype… and I dated enough guys in my 30’s to say that. (I had the ticking bio-clock going. LOL).

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?

I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!

Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=][/quote]
He was 48 when we met and married, 49 when we had our first kid. He turned 50 about a month after our youngest was born.

He’s not typical to the guys I dated… Most of the guys who were in their late 30’s through late 40’s that I dated prior had either already had their kids with wife #1 and didn’t want more. (which is fine). Or were NOT the type I’d want to have kids with, even if they wanted them, because of Peter Pan syndrome. I don’t think my husband represents a broad stereotype… and I dated enough guys in my 30’s to say that. (I had the ticking bio-clock going. LOL).

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?

I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!

Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=][/quote]
He was 48 when we met and married, 49 when we had our first kid. He turned 50 about a month after our youngest was born.

He’s not typical to the guys I dated… Most of the guys who were in their late 30’s through late 40’s that I dated prior had either already had their kids with wife #1 and didn’t want more. (which is fine). Or were NOT the type I’d want to have kids with, even if they wanted them, because of Peter Pan syndrome. I don’t think my husband represents a broad stereotype… and I dated enough guys in my 30’s to say that. (I had the ticking bio-clock going. LOL).

[Author]

Posts