Here's one reason white women are not having kids

I didn't know which section to put this under, Education, Race Relations, Women's Rights, etc. but after thinking about it, finally decided to put it here.

Here's one of the big reasons white women in the U.S. are not having kids: There's a shortage of college-educated men.

Women who are themselves college-educated seem averse to marrying "down", or forming serious relationships with these potential male candidates.

There is now a higher percent of women with college degrees than men, and it also takes younger adult men longer to obtain a college degree, on average. (This discrepancy between genders is even greater for African Americans)

Among whites in the U.S., 56 percent of 4-year degrees are earned by women, and 60 percent of Associate's degrees.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

By the time they were 23 years old, 23 percent of women had earned a 4-year degree, versus 14 percent of men.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/nlsyth_02092011.pdf

So instead these "surplus" college educated women end up not having kids.

There's also some anecdotal evidence to suggest that college-educated women who marry a man with lower educational qualifications and choose to start a family are much more likely to only have 1 child.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands
https://www.economist.com/news/inte...g-children-much-less-worrying-it-appears-rise

While a college educated man is much more likely to marry to a college educated woman than a non-college educated man, there are still plenty of college educated men who start families with non-college educated women. So it's not as if there's "enough" non-college educated women to go around for all the men without a college degree.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/a...er-college-graduates-most-of-the-time/274654/

Of women with a 4-year degree now married, 59 percent are married to a man with a 4-year degree or more. About 25 percent of college-educated women are not married.

Compared to males who did not complete high school, men with at least a bachelor's degree are about 11 percent more likely to have married by the age of 46, while for females it's only 4 percent greater.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/a...-gender-race-and-educational-attainment-5.htm

This percentage doesn't tell the whole story because the marriages of more educated men last longer than those of men without a 4-year degree.

Among women in the U.S. between the ages of 40 to 44, 20 percent have never had a child, and this percentage rises to 27 percent for women of this age group with graduate or professional degrees.
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/educated-women-having-fewer-children/

College educated women are likelier to have fewer children than women without college education:

By the time women reach the 40-44 age group, those who didn’t finish high school averaged 2.56 births per 1,000 women, the highest fertility. Women who finished high school or had any college experience had the next highest fertility, 1.88 and 1.91, respectively. Women who finished college had the lowest fertility — 1.75 births among those with a bachelor’s degree and an even-lower 1.67 for those with graduate degrees,​

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/

Interestingly, however, women with higher levels of education than a 4-year degree are no longer having fewer children than those with only a 4-year degree, which is a change from what the statistics were 25 years ago.
https://voxeu.org/article/highly-educated-women-no-longer-have-fewer-kids

It's still overall true to say that college educated women have fewer children than those without college.

All this, of course, has big demographic implications.

 

I thought it was because they didn't want to look fat.

 

This is not a credible thread and should be reported.

 

There are numerous progressive-leaning media sites that have published articles about women having trouble finding a suitable man:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bj5yv/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/10996950/tinder-solid-dudes
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...ege-educated-there-is-a-man-deficit-in-the-us

I don't see how anyone could claim this subject isn't "credible".

Reiver isn't even in the U.S. so I don't see how he can make such a comment.

Well anyway, the reason I posted this here in this section was that this phenomena has a lot of economic causes and is going to have a lot of economic implications, as demographics and family structure always does.

 

The shortage of college men will drive them to the lesbo persuasion.

 

of course if true the lib would not be so afraid to tell us why. What is he so afraid of?

 

you actually might be right. More single mothers than ever now; some using men more as sperm banks perhaps until science eliminates the need for men altogether. Men have testosterone for war and thus nowadays most are warriors without a war.

 

Looks like there's a similar problem in Australia.
I was browsing through some old threads and came upon this: Shortage of eligible men as women struggle in dating game

Fellow demographer Bernard Salt, based on Census data published in March 2012, found it was most competitive for single women of marrying age.
There are 1.3 million single women aged 25-34 living in Australia. In the same age bracket, however, there are only 86,000 single, heterosexual, well-off or "eligible'' men earning above $60,000 a year.​

 

"...well-off or "eligible'' men earning above $60,000 a year."

I think we can locate the rest of those needed men; right below that income level.

 

After a little time on the internet, your argument doesn't explain the decrease in childbirth.

All industrialized western nations show the same trend - women are having fewer children, and women are postponing having children. Since women have a limited time window for getting pregnant, postponing having children by default means fewer children.

And there is the career aspect. If women want a career, then it means no children, or fewer children.

There is also the financial aspect, the younger people (in their 20's) are postponing children because they can't afford a family, they don't have good jobs or have too much debt.

 

Economic woes in rural America
"the fastest growing population in homeless shelters: single moms and their families"

 

Women waiting till their in their thirtees to get pregnant for the first time in many cases is too late,their most productive years late teens early twenties11Also the sperm viability of white males of European extraction, regardless of where they live in the world, has seen a dramatic decline in the last 30-40 years.Scientists have yet to come up with the cause f the decline.

 

You make no mention of decreased sperm viability being experienced by white males, pretty much worldwide, as white populations around the world decline,more dying than being born.Hispanics are the only ethnic group with positive birth rates in the USA,whites are negative and blacks and Asians are barely break even.

 

If you look at fertility rates, there's a clear connection. Higher cost of living areas that have higher population densities, higher housing costs, and more employment available for women have lower fertility rates than areas with lower costs of housing, and which either have good paying job opportunities for the man or limited job opportunities available for women.

That is, if you want women to have children, there first has to be enough space (not too much overcrowding), having a family has to be affordable, and it has to not be too much in a woman's interest to have a job.

In many city areas there are lots of job opportunities for women, but the housing costs are also very high, so as a result it's in the woman's best interest to work full time and not have a family. In the country, costs of living are low but also there's fewer job opportunities. That's part of the reason the pace of life is slower and people do a lot more things for themselves, to be self-sufficient, they have more time.

But I think it's more than just economic factors, there really is a psychological aspect. Women want a man who earns more than they do, and so a "career woman" is less likely to get married in the first place or form serious relationships in which they would consider having children. Especially when there isn't a man there who will be providing for those children. (Also makes less sense to take a temporary break off from working to have a child when you're the higher income earner in the relationship)

As for racial factors, I've also heard it said that many white women (the attractive ones at least) have higher expectations from the man about how much he can financially provide. (This is one of the reasons cited by many lower income white men who choose to be with a woman from a different race)

 

As a college educated single man, I dont think its got much to do with 'marrying down.' Women seem to have higher and higher expectations of emotional entertainment in relationships. Its no longer good enough that you fix the house, pay bills, dont cheat, and cuddle for movies before bed. Now you have to be constantly entertaining with witty conversation or emotional vulnerability while doing the rest of those things, or 'the spark has gone out of the relationship.' I think hollywood romcoms are being mistaken for a depiction of attainable reality. In much the same way that men think all women should be swimsuit models (attracting as they do to the visual), women think all men should have the witty, romantic dialogue of a dozen screenplay writers (attracting as they do to the emotional).

We're being indoctrinated against eachother.

 

We white people of European ancestry are marrying too late in life not just in the USA but world wide.We are killing ourselves off all over the world deaths outnumbering births.

 

Don't you think the white fascists should actually reproduce just a little less?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...scouraging-millennials-from-starting-a-family

So it looks like women are looking for a husband who can provide for her while she stays home and has children.

That can be a tall order these days, with so many households needing two income earners to stay afloat.

 

This says whites are having the most births in the US;
https://www.kff.org/other/state-ind...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

And all of your data above is only about 'whites'? I think it applies to all women.

There are cultural differences today, religious differences today, work-place differences today, all of which impact birthing more than whether someone is white or higher educated...

 

That would be selective framing of the statistics. The majority of the births are not white.

(Example: if I have a raffle bucket full of 8 tickets with people's names written on them, Tom has his name on 3 tickets, Drake is on 2 tickets, Sally on another 2 tickets, and there's 1 ticket with Cynthia's name on it, then it's true that Tom has the most tickets, even though most of the tickets are not his)

It applies especially to white women, though it does apply to all women to some extent.

As you read in the opening post, some of those statistics apply to all women, and some of them apply to white women specifically.

 

You said; "Here's one of the big reasons white women in the U.S. are not having kids:" Yet statistics say whites have the most births in the US today. No matter the ethnicity of all births, whites are definitely giving birth. It's only a matter of time when whites are well into the minority and this makes sense beyond educational credits.

 

Yes, so much liberal inefficiency and liberal waste in system now that's hard to earn a living despite decades of productivity increases.

Thomas Jefferson:
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.