United States People

B

3

Birthrates Since World War II

Birthrates decreased steadily until the Great Depression in the 1930s, when they suddenly dropped 24 percent in a decade, reaching unprecedented lows in the mid-1930s. Families felt they could not afford more children during this prolonged economic crisis. There were also relatively few births during the crisis of World War II as couples feared for the future and as husbands and wives were separated because of military service.

B3

a

Baby Boom

After World War II birthrates shot up, and by the mid-1950s were 30 percent higher than during the depths of the depression. This unprecedented upward movement in fertility levels produced a baby boom that was both a result of postwar prosperity and a reaction against the deprivations of the depression and war years. This boom helped fuel the growth of suburbs in the postwar period. The baby-boom generation had lasting effects on America. Education costs soared as this generation of children reached school age. The youth culture of the 1960s reflected, in part, the dominance of adolescent and young adult baby boomers. And recognizing that baby boomers will begin retiring in the early decades of the 21st century, the solvency of the Social Security system has become a major concern. Fertility rates declined again after the mid-1950s, although the 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 contributed to a second, smaller baby boom in the 1970s and 1980s as they reached adulthood and started having children of their own.

A number of changes affected fertility rates in the 1950s. Many married women who had taken temporary jobs during the crisis of World War II now sought permanent positions. As these women moved into the workforce, they demanded more effective methods of birth control. By the 1960s new forms of contraception were available, including the birth control pill, intrauterine devices, and surgical techniques for permanently inducing infertility, such as tubal sterilization in women and vasectomy in men. At the end of the 20th century, 64 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 reported using birth control. Since 1957, the trend in the total birthrate has been downward.

B3

b

New Attitudes Toward Sexuality

While these new technologies offered more effective control over fertility, new attitudes toward sexuality in the 1950s stressed impulsiveness, innovation, and experimentation—all of which discouraged the use of birth control devices, especially among young, unmarried couples. One result was that teenage pregnancies and births outside marriage soared in the 1950s. Teenage pregnancies declined in the 1960s and 1970s, surged again in the late 1980s, and then declined sharply in the 1990s. By 2000, teenage birth rate was down to 49 births per 1,000. Out-of-wedlock births, once comparatively rare, increased dramatically after World War II, and more than a third of all infants in the United States are now born outside of marriage.

---

---

B

4

Educational and Racial Differences in Birthrates

Fertility rates declined among all major groups of Americans in the last decades of the 20th century, in keeping with the trend since the late 18th century. One reason for this trend has been the increase in educational opportunities for women. Women’s educational levels affect births. Most college-educated women who have children wait until their 30s to do so, after finishing their education and establishing a career. Other women begin bearing children earlier and continue bearing children later in life.

The education level of parents also affects childbearing. The children of college-educated parents are less likely to be sexually active at age 15 than the children of those who have not completed high school.

Births outside marriage among American subcultures differ significantly. From the 1930s through the 1970s, the rates for unmarried white women giving birth remained below 10 percent. This rate increased, but was still under 20 percent in the 1980s. It increased in the 1990s, reaching 26.7 percent in 1999. The rate of black children born out of wedlock in 1999 was 68.8 percent; this is high in part because married black women have few children. A desire to enhance the opportunities available to their children and fears about the discrimination their children might face inhibit many married African American couples. Unmarried couples of all races tend to be more impulsive about sexuality and childbearing. The percentage of births to unmarried Hispanics in 1999 was 42.1 percent.

Better-educated women and men of all groups—black, white, or Hispanic—are more likely to bear children within marriage than individuals with less education. Black women, married and unmarried, have a far higher rate of unintended or unwanted pregnancies than other groups, more than half of all pregnancies. This may indicate less access to suitable birth control technologies. Hispanic women have the largest number of children among major groups—3.1 children on average, compared to 2.2 for blacks, 2.1 for Native Americans, 2.1 for Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 2.1 for whites.

The causes for the recent changes in births and marriage are poorly understood. But because births outside of marriage, early sexual experimentation, and early childbearing are so strongly linked to educational levels, and because educational achievement is itself linked to wealth, the rise in out-of-wedlock births may be a function of the changing U.S. economy. Since the 1970s the industrial base of the United States has been eroding, and with it many good-paying jobs. In 1979 the typical middle-class worker earned $498 a week. In 1995 he or she earned $475 a week (adjusted for inflation). Income for the poorest fifth of Americans fell .78 percent a year between 1973 and 1993. Industrial employment has been replaced by service work, which rewards highly educated, computer-savvy workers well but which tends to pay the majority of workers low wages. Rapid economic change, financial stress, and anxiety about the future may undermine the ability of couples to form more stable unions and have children within marriage.

C

Growth through Natural Increase: Deaths

Fertility rates are not the only factor influencing population growth. The population also grows when people are healthier and therefore live longer. Just as the birthrate has been steadily declining in the United States, so, too, has the death rate.

American babies are healthier than ever before in this country’s history and 99.3 percent will survive to their first birthday. Although the records from a century ago are incomplete, they indicate that only 84 percent of infants survived their first year. And a century before that, about 80 percent of infants may have lived to their first birthday. Most of the improvement in infant health has come in the 20th century and is due to improved childcare, better medical care for mothers and children, better sanitation, and the development of antibiotics.

Children born in 2008 can expect to reach age 75.3 if they are male and age 81.1 if they are female. Around the turn of the 20th century, the average life expectancy for women was 48, and for men it was 46. A century earlier, when childbirth was more dangerous, women had the lower life expectancy, around 35, compared with 37 for men.

Americans are living longer because medical care and public sanitation have improved substantially. However, infant survival and life expectancies are lower in the United States than in other developed countries because of disparities in wealth, education, and access to health care. In Japan in 2008, men could expect to live to age 78.7 and women to 85.6; in Sweden men could expect to live to age 78.5 and women to 83.1. In western Europe, the infant mortality rate is about 5 deaths per 1,000 births; in Japan it is 2.8; in the United States it is 6.3.

In the American population, wealthier people live longer, healthier lives than do poorer people. Great differences between rich and poor can produce poor health for the poorest citizens. From the 1920s to the early 1970s, America experienced an expansion of the middle class. Since then, the rich have nearly doubled their share of the country’s wealth. Hopelessness and rage can lead to substance abuse, violence, and mental depression, which can negatively affect health and longevity. More direct effects of poverty that shorten life spans for the poorest populations include malnutrition, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, and lack of medical attention.

More cohesive communities with a more equitable distribution of income and goods, even if relatively poor, tend to have better overall health than those with great disparities in wealth. For example, in the early 1990s the District of Columbia, where there are great disparities between the wealthy neighborhoods and the majority of poor neighborhoods, had an overall life expectancy of 62 for men and 74 for women. In Kansas, where the median household income was below that of Washington, D.C., but where the social differences are less sharply defined, the life expectancy was 73 for men and 80 for women.

Life expectancies also differ substantially by ethnicity and race. In 1999, whites, who tend to be wealthier, had a life expectancy of 77.3, and blacks, who tend to have less wealth, had a life expectancy of 71.4. This is, however, a smaller gap than once existed.

As noted earlier, women have a longer life expectancy than men. This is because women have a somewhat stronger immune system and suffer less from stress-related illnesses and from alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence. Because of the longer female life span, the U.S. population had more women than men in 2008—154.5 million women compared to 149.3 million men. Up to age 30, however, men outnumbered women in the United States, for two reasons: slightly more males are born than females, and slightly more young men immigrate into the United States than women.

	More from Encarta
	•  Presidential Myths Quiz •  Coffee break: Recharge your brain