This summer, 28-year-old Anthony Shepherd and his wife of seven years, Cynthia, will fly from China, where they've been teaching English since 2009, to Wisconsin for a vacation. In addition to relaxing, catching up with friends, and attending her brother's wedding, they plan on stopping by a vasectomy clinic. The People's Republic may be notorious for its one-child policy, but the Shepherds' attitude toward reproduction is even more stringent. Call it the zero-child policy.

Even before the Shepherds left Asheville, North Carolina, for Sichuan province, they'd made their life decision based on the experiences of their "childed" friends. "We watched them struggle to pay bills, find suitable apartments or houses to fit their families, and work at jobs they didn't like because they needed the insurance," Cynthia says. So she and Anthony enthusiastically took a pass on parenthood, an increasingly common decision for America's couples.

Considering the state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that the ranks of the child-free are exploding. The Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost for a middle-income two-parent family to support a kid through high school is $286,050 (it's nearly half a million dollars for couples in higher tax brackets). Want him or her to get a college education? The number jumps to nearly $350,000 for a public university, and more than $400,000 for private. Though if your kid's planning to major in Male Sterilization, it could wind up being a good investment: The vasectomy business seems to be one of the few in America that is booming. In the past year, the Associates in Urology clinic in West Orange, New Jersey, has seen a 50 percent jump in the procedure. So you could stress over starting a college fund, or you could consider that you can get a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood for less than the cost of a Bugaboo Cameleon stroller. Unless you're among the less than 2 percent of Americans who farm for a living and might conceivably rely on offspring for free labor, children have gone from being an economic asset to an economic liability.

But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess.

In his best-seller Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes, "Couples generally start out quite happy in their marriages and then become progressively less satisfied over the course of their lives together, getting close to their original levels of satisfaction only when their children leave home." No wonder so many are choosing to spend their entire marriages as empty-nesters. A 2009 University of Denver study found that 90 percent of couples experienced a decrease in marital bliss after the birth of their first child. And in a 2007 Pew survey, just 41 percent of adults stated that children were very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s.

This isn't just an American trend. Global birth rates dropped from six children per woman to 2.9 between 1972 and 2008 as people migrated to cities. One Italian mayor has resorted to bribery to restock his town, offering couples $15,000 for each child they produce. Germany's baby shortage results in an annual population loss of 100,000. And the sheep-to-human ratio in New Zealand, which currently stands at 10 to 1, seems sure to increase, since a staggering 18 percent of adult men there have elected to get vasectomies.

Every once in a while I go baby-crazy and think I must have one, but for the most part I think like these folks. I don't think I really WANT to be a parent and have all that responsibility.

SCNDLS said:

This summer, 28-year-old Anthony Shepherd and his wife of seven years, Cynthia, will fly from China, where they've been teaching English since 2009, to Wisconsin for a vacation. In addition to relaxing, catching up with friends, and attending her brother's wedding, they plan on stopping by a vasectomy clinic. The People's Republic may be notorious for its one-child policy, but the Shepherds' attitude toward reproduction is even more stringent. Call it the zero-child policy.

Even before the Shepherds left Asheville, North Carolina, for Sichuan province, they'd made their life decision based on the experiences of their "childed" friends. "We watched them struggle to pay bills, find suitable apartments or houses to fit their families, and work at jobs they didn't like because they needed the insurance," Cynthia says. So she and Anthony enthusiastically took a pass on parenthood, an increasingly common decision for America's couples.

Considering the state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that the ranks of the child-free are exploding. The Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost for a middle-income two-parent family to support a kid through high school is $286,050 (it's nearly half a million dollars for couples in higher tax brackets). Want him or her to get a college education? The number jumps to nearly $350,000 for a public university, and more than $400,000 for private. Though if your kid's planning to major in Male Sterilization, it could wind up being a good investment: The vasectomy business seems to be one of the few in America that is booming. In the past year, the Associates in Urology clinic in West Orange, New Jersey, has seen a 50 percent jump in the procedure. So you could stress over starting a college fund, or you could consider that you can get a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood for less than the cost of a Bugaboo Cameleon stroller. Unless you're among the less than 2 percent of Americans who farm for a living and might conceivably rely on offspring for free labor, children have gone from being an economic asset to an economic liability.

But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess.

In his best-seller Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes, "Couples generally start out quite happy in their marriages and then become progressively less satisfied over the course of their lives together, getting close to their original levels of satisfaction only when their children leave home." No wonder so many are choosing to spend their entire marriages as empty-nesters. A 2009 University of Denver study found that 90 percent of couples experienced a decrease in marital bliss after the birth of their first child. And in a 2007 Pew survey, just 41 percent of adults stated that children were very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s.

This isn't just an American trend. Global birth rates dropped from six children per woman to 2.9 between 1972 and 2008 as people migrated to cities. One Italian mayor has resorted to bribery to restock his town, offering couples $15,000 for each child they produce. Germany's baby shortage results in an annual population loss of 100,000. And the sheep-to-human ratio in New Zealand, which currently stands at 10 to 1, seems sure to increase, since a staggering 18 percent of adult men there have elected to get vasectomies.

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

Goes to show that more people are taking parenting more seriously. Kudos to them!

whistle said:

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

Naw, it'll be on those lovely Mormons or Catholics... don't blame the poor, blame the traditional ones that are not allowed to use BC.

Condoms are free in most poor communities... and Chlamydia is rampant.

It's no surprise younger people are choosing not to have children or waiting a long time to start a family. The more educated a couple is, the fewer children they have as adults. Combine that with a poor economy and you have the makings of a baby bust.

Yet the right wing Republicans insist on cutting aid to Planned Parenthood and are working to demolish Medicaid, both of which give poor people medical help for family planning. All this will do is hurt poeple who need medical help the most and encourage those who could have families not to have them.

Interesting.

whistle said:

SCNDLS said:

This summer, 28-year-old Anthony Shepherd and his wife of seven years, Cynthia, will fly from China, where they've been teaching English since 2009, to Wisconsin for a vacation. In addition to relaxing, catching up with friends, and attending her brother's wedding, they plan on stopping by a vasectomy clinic. The People's Republic may be notorious for its one-child policy, but the Shepherds' attitude toward reproduction is even more stringent. Call it the zero-child policy.

Even before the Shepherds left Asheville, North Carolina, for Sichuan province, they'd made their life decision based on the experiences of their "childed" friends. "We watched them struggle to pay bills, find suitable apartments or houses to fit their families, and work at jobs they didn't like because they needed the insurance," Cynthia says. So she and Anthony enthusiastically took a pass on parenthood, an increasingly common decision for America's couples.

Considering the state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that the ranks of the child-free are exploding. The Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost for a middle-income two-parent family to support a kid through high school is $286,050 (it's nearly half a million dollars for couples in higher tax brackets). Want him or her to get a college education? The number jumps to nearly $350,000 for a public university, and more than $400,000 for private. Though if your kid's planning to major in Male Sterilization, it could wind up being a good investment: The vasectomy business seems to be one of the few in America that is booming. In the past year, the Associates in Urology clinic in West Orange, New Jersey, has seen a 50 percent jump in the procedure. So you could stress over starting a college fund, or you could consider that you can get a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood for less than the cost of a Bugaboo Cameleon stroller. Unless you're among the less than 2 percent of Americans who farm for a living and might conceivably rely on offspring for free labor, children have gone from being an economic asset to an economic liability.

But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess.

In his best-seller Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes, "Couples generally start out quite happy in their marriages and then become progressively less satisfied over the course of their lives together, getting close to their original levels of satisfaction only when their children leave home." No wonder so many are choosing to spend their entire marriages as empty-nesters. A 2009 University of Denver study found that 90 percent of couples experienced a decrease in marital bliss after the birth of their first child. And in a 2007 Pew survey, just 41 percent of adults stated that children were very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s.

This isn't just an American trend. Global birth rates dropped from six children per woman to 2.9 between 1972 and 2008 as people migrated to cities. One Italian mayor has resorted to bribery to restock his town, offering couples $15,000 for each child they produce. Germany's baby shortage results in an annual population loss of 100,000. And the sheep-to-human ratio in New Zealand, which currently stands at 10 to 1, seems sure to increase, since a staggering 18 percent of adult men there have elected to get vasectomies.

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

[Snip - luv4u]

whistle said:

SCNDLS said:

This summer, 28-year-old Anthony Shepherd and his wife of seven years, Cynthia, will fly from China, where they've been teaching English since 2009, to Wisconsin for a vacation. In addition to relaxing, catching up with friends, and attending her brother's wedding, they plan on stopping by a vasectomy clinic. The People's Republic may be notorious for its one-child policy, but the Shepherds' attitude toward reproduction is even more stringent. Call it the zero-child policy.

Even before the Shepherds left Asheville, North Carolina, for Sichuan province, they'd made their life decision based on the experiences of their "childed" friends. "We watched them struggle to pay bills, find suitable apartments or houses to fit their families, and work at jobs they didn't like because they needed the insurance," Cynthia says. So she and Anthony enthusiastically took a pass on parenthood, an increasingly common decision for America's couples.

Considering the state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that the ranks of the child-free are exploding. The Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost for a middle-income two-parent family to support a kid through high school is $286,050 (it's nearly half a million dollars for couples in higher tax brackets). Want him or her to get a college education? The number jumps to nearly $350,000 for a public university, and more than $400,000 for private. Though if your kid's planning to major in Male Sterilization, it could wind up being a good investment: The vasectomy business seems to be one of the few in America that is booming. In the past year, the Associates in Urology clinic in West Orange, New Jersey, has seen a 50 percent jump in the procedure. So you could stress over starting a college fund, or you could consider that you can get a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood for less than the cost of a Bugaboo Cameleon stroller. Unless you're among the less than 2 percent of Americans who farm for a living and might conceivably rely on offspring for free labor, children have gone from being an economic asset to an economic liability.

But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess.

In his best-seller Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes, "Couples generally start out quite happy in their marriages and then become progressively less satisfied over the course of their lives together, getting close to their original levels of satisfaction only when their children leave home." No wonder so many are choosing to spend their entire marriages as empty-nesters. A 2009 University of Denver study found that 90 percent of couples experienced a decrease in marital bliss after the birth of their first child. And in a 2007 Pew survey, just 41 percent of adults stated that children were very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s.

This isn't just an American trend. Global birth rates dropped from six children per woman to 2.9 between 1972 and 2008 as people migrated to cities. One Italian mayor has resorted to bribery to restock his town, offering couples $15,000 for each child they produce. Germany's baby shortage results in an annual population loss of 100,000. And the sheep-to-human ratio in New Zealand, which currently stands at 10 to 1, seems sure to increase, since a staggering 18 percent of adult men there have elected to get vasectomies.

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

armpit said:

whistle said:

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

[Snip - luv4u]

that's not an insult, it's just a fact. not trying to turn this into a class issue, or race issue, but it's statistically true, and provable, that more children are born to lower income women with less education, than to higher income, highly educated women. and now that the federal government has stripped planned parenthood of funding, this disparity will only increase with time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ility_rate

[edit] United States

The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime. The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman. However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the U.S. from countries with higher fertility than that of the U.S.^{[citation needed]} However, the fertility rates of immigrants to the U.S. has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income.^[7]

[Edited 6/29/11 6:58am]

XxAxX said:

armpit said:

[Snip - luv4u]

that's not an insult, it's just a fact. not trying to turn this into a class issue, or race issue, but it's statistically true, and provable, that more children are born to lower income women with less education, than to higher income, highly educated women. and now that the federal government has stripped planned parenthood of funding, this disparity will only increase with time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ility_rate

Period	U.S. Total Fertility Rate[6]
1930–34	2.1
1935–39	2.0
1940–44	2.5
1945–49	3.0
1950–54	3.3
1955–59	3.7
1960–64	3.4
1965–69	2.6
1970–74	2.1
1975–79	1.8

[edit] United States

The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime. The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman. However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the U.S. from countries with higher fertility than that of the U.S.^{[citation needed]} However, the fertility rates of immigrants to the U.S. has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income.^[7]

[Edited 6/29/11 6:58am]

728huey said:

It's no surprise younger people are choosing not to have children or waiting a long time to start a family. The more educated a couple is, the fewer children they have as adults. Combine that with a poor economy and you have the makings of a baby bust.

Still the pressure of society is a burden. You don't have kids so you don't fit the mould. Peeps are like "HOLY SHIT! What kind of a monster are you?" when you confess you don't plan to experience parenthood.

paintedlady said:

whistle said:

don't worry, the lower-income families will more than pick up the slack.

Naw, it'll be on those lovely Mormons or Catholics... don't blame the poor, blame the traditional ones that are not allowed to use BC.

Condoms are free in most poor communities... and Chlamydia is rampant.

Pssshhh this catholic girl used BC from day one! Im a god damn sinner! (my best Clarence Williams voice)

XxAxX said:

that's not an insult, it's just a fact. not trying to turn this into a class issue, or race issue, but it's statistically true, and provable, that more children are born to lower income women with less education, than to higher income, highly educated women. and now that the federal government has stripped planned parenthood of funding, this disparity will only increase with time:

it's a class and race issue by default, and to spout ignorant shit and co-sign such statements like "don't worry the poor will pick up the slack" speaks volumes about both of your characters.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but think about how you word things before you state them.

fucking dissappointing.

and make no fucking mistake, the higher "class" wants the poor to have tons and tons of babies. They just don't want any of their resources distributed to help support them. They want them to work all the menial minimum wage jobs in the country (that they wish they could pay $2 an hour if not for those stupid laws) and to get free labor from the prison system.

You can't have an upper class without tons of lower class to stand on. Fucking elementary social economics.

JerseyKRS said:

and make no fucking mistake, the higher "class" wants the poor to have tons and tons of babies. They just don't want any of their resources distributed to help support them. They want them to work all the menial minimum wage jobs in the country (that they wish they could pay $2 an hour if not for those stupid laws) and to get free labor from the prison system.

You can't have an upper class without tons of lower class to stand on. Fucking elementary social economics.

I think I love you!

JerseyKRS said:

poor folks are only picking up the slack from rich bitches that can afford multiple abortions*

*just add that to the other dumb shit already said here

orger said:

poor folks are only picking up the slack from rich bitches that can afford multiple abortions*

*just add that to the other dumb shit already said here

Welcome back, fool

How dare you anger me with facts!

I'm just glad its the man taking the initiative and getting himself "fixed". For too long the burden has been on the woman when its the man that can make babies like he's watering grass and shit. Every now and then, I think of that North Carolina man who had 23 kids by over a dozen women. His ass spent all day in family court.

Judge: "Case #5!"

Ole Dude: "Yeah that's me ya honah!"

Judge: "Case #6"

Ole Dude: "Yeah that's me ya honah!"

Judge: "Case #7"

Ole Dude: "Yeah that's me ya honah!"

Judge: "Case #8"

Ole Dude: Yeah that's me ya honah!"

Judge: "Ok fool just stand there till I don't need you any more. We will now proceed with cases 9 through 17."

JerseyKRS said:

and make no fucking mistake, the higher "class" wants the poor to have tons and tons of babies. They just don't want any of their resources distributed to help support them. They want them to work all the menial minimum wage jobs in the country (that they wish they could pay $2 an hour if not for those stupid laws) and to get free labor from the prison system.

You can't have an upper class without tons of lower class to stand on. Fucking elementary social economics.

My personal opinion about childless marriages (by choice) ...

Why bother getting marriad... Go with each other...

Just my humble opinion.

Having said that.

Needless to say this article was one sweeping generlization that didn't take into account some of complexity and other underlining issues of the "No-Baby Boom". That's just one aspect of couples deciding not to have a children... there are pro's and con's.

The article didn't mention that many European nations birth rates have become soooo dangerously low that many of them are dependent on immigration (to their dismay) for workers. If this trends continues many of those countires (German, Italy, Spain and others) won't be able to support their social services, tax base, or workforce. I'm not saying people who don't want children should have children for the greater society.

What I am saying is we are far more interdependent than we'd like to acknowledge... we don't live in a vacuum. Poor families should be given a living working wage, access to affordable housing, medicine, and education.

============================

[Edited 7/22/11 4:03am]

JerseyKRS said:

orger said:

JerseyKRS said:

and make no fucking mistake, the higher "class" wants the poor to have tons and tons of babies. They just don't want any of their resources distributed to help support them. They want them to work all the menial minimum wage jobs in the country (that they wish they could pay $2 an hour if not for those stupid laws) and to get free labor from the prison system.

You can't have an upper class without tons of lower class to stand on. Fucking elementary social economics.

Word.

JerseyKRS said:

XxAxX said:

that's not an insult, it's just a fact. not trying to turn this into a class issue, or race issue, but it's statistically true, and provable, that more children are born to lower income women with less education, than to higher income, highly educated women. and now that the federal government has stripped planned parenthood of funding, this disparity will only increase with time:

it's a class and race issue by default, and to spout ignorant shit and co-sign such statements like "don't worry the poor will pick up the slack" speaks volumes about both of your characters.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but think about how you word things before you state them.

fucking dissappointing.

gee, it sounds like you're picking a fight. maybe you should choose your words more carefully.

i stated a fact, not an opinion. there wasn't anything ignorant about it.

I allways thought I would have children and a family.

However, I never met a man who wanted the same and felt comfortable with the consequences. Now that I'm physically running out of time, i doubt more than ever. At the moment I have no career, and I'm okay with that. Because it's just me I'm responsible for. I could not support a child right now.

With no wish for children, I don't need the hassle of a partner and especially not a 'living together sharing a household' situation.

If the possibility of a family would come up, it means a major life style change for me. I would only want that with a man that has the same need for a family.

I don't consider it as an easy choice. For me the circumstances leave me to not have the choice for a family (no partner, not enough income). And when I would have the choice, I don't know what I would do. It's different than 20 years ago, it's not something you 'automatically or naturally' choose for.

orger said:

poor folks are only picking up the slack from rich bitches that can afford multiple abortions*

Either parent or abort. Abandoning a child to adoption sounds worse to me.