Mean Age at First Birth Rises to 27.1 Years

The average age at which women have their first birth climbed to a record high of 27.1 years in 2020, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Mean age at first birth has been rising steadily for decades...

Mean age at first birth, 1970 to 2020

2020: 27.1

2010: 25.4

2000: 24.9

1990: 24.2

1980: 22.7

1970: 21.4

There were a total of 3,613,647 babies born in the United States in 2020—4 percent fewer than in 2019 and the smallest number since 1980. The number of births a woman will have in her lifetime given current age-specific fertility rates also hit a record low in 2020 of just 1.6. As recently as 2009, this figure was more than 2.0. 

Here are some other facts about 2020 births...

• 51.0% of births were to non-Hispanic white women
• 24.0% of births were to Hispanic women
• 15.6% of births were to Black women
•   6.1% of births were to Asian women
• 40.5% of births were to unmarried women
• 31.8% of births were by Cesarean delivery
• 57.2% of mothers were overweight
• 42.0% of deliveries were paid for by Medicaid
• 83.5% of infants were being breastfed at discharge
•   5.5% of women smoked during pregnancy
•   2.0% of pregnancies were the result of infertility treatment

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2020 (PDF)

Home Births Way Up in 2020

The number of home births surged in 2020. The 45,646 babies born at home were 19 percent more than the 2019 number. Babies born at home accounted for 1.26 percent of all births in 2020, up from 1.03 percent of births in 2019—a 21 percent increase and the highest share since 1990. What accounts for this increase? Covid, of course. Because of "concerns about contracting Covid-19 while in the hospital, limitations or bans on support people in the hospital, and the separation of infants from mothers suspected to have Covid-19, interest in giving birth at home increased," explains the National Center for Health Statistics. 

By month, the percentage of births occurring at home in January and February of 2020 was the same as the share in 2019. The percentage jumped above the trend line in March 2020, when the share was 5 percent greater than in March 2019. In April 2020, the home birth share was 23 percent higher than in April 2019. In May 2020, the home birth share was 45 percent greater than it had been one year earlier. The share remained well above average in every month through the rest of the year. 

Home births accounted for more than 2 percent of total births in these 12 states in 2020...

3.18% in Idaho

3.02% in Vermont

2.82% in Wisconsin

2.63% in Utah

2.59% in Montana

2.58% in Washington

2.43% in Hawaii

2.40% in Oregon

2.32% in Maine

2.25% in Alaska

2.25% in Wyoming

2.20% in Pennsylvania

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Changes in Home Births by Race and Hispanic Origin and State of Residence of Mother: United States, 2018–19 and 2019–20 (PDF)

Births Declined in All 50 States

The results are in. The coronavirus pandemic led to a substantial decline in births in the United States. There were fewer births in the United States in every month of 2020 than in the same month of 2019, the National Center for Health Statistics reports. The decline during the second half of the year (6 percent) was greater than the decline in the first half of the year (2 percent). The biggest decline occurred in December, with 8 percent fewer births in 2020 than in December 2019. 

"The impact of the pandemic on the United States in 2020 varied by month," the NCHS reports. "The impact also varied widely by state as the infection spread across the United States." 

In the first half of 2020, the number of births fell in 20 states due to the long-term trend of declining fertility. In comparison, 27 states had declining births in the first half of 2019. 

In the second half of 2020, the effects of the pandemic began to emerge. The number of births declined in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In comparison, births declined in only 9 states in the second half of 2019. Here are the states with the largest declines...

States with the largest decline in births, second half of 2020 versus 2019

-11% in New Mexico

  -9% in New York

  -8% in California

  -8% in Hawaii

  -8% in West Virginia

The remaining states and D.C. had declines of 3 to 7 percent. 

"Evaluation of trends in births by month will continue to determine whether these declines continued into 2021 or were unique to 2020 during the time of the initial Covid-19 pandemic," the NCHS concludes.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data, Declines in Births by Month: United States, 2020

Just 51% of Births Are to Non-Hispanic Whites

Non-Hispanic whites still account for the majority of births in the United States, but just barely. Fifty-one percent of the women who gave birth in 2020 were non-Hispanic white. Given that some of these non-Hispanic white mothers are intermarried—meaning their partner is of another race or Hispanic origin—the minority share of the nation's newborns is likely above 50 percent. 

The non-Hispanic white share of births has fallen by 8 percentage points over the past two decades. The Black share has fallen slightly, while the Asian and Hispanic shares have grown...

Percent distribution of births by race/Hispanic origin of mother, 2000, 2010, and 2020

	2020	2010	2000
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Asian	6.1	6.2	4.9
Black	14.7	14.7	14.9
Hispanic	24.0	23.6	20.1
Non-Hispanic white	51.0	54.1	58.2

Note: Percentages will not sum to 100 because not all races are shown. 

Source: Demo Memo analysis of the National Center for Health Statistics' Birth Data

2020 Drop in Births Is 9th Largest

The 143,000 drop in births in 2020 was the ninth largest single-year decline in more than a century of record keeping. What were the eight bigger declines? Take a look...

10 largest annual declines in births (and reason for decline)

1. 1972: -298,000 (birth of Generation X)

2. 1965: -267,000 (birth of Generation X)

3. 1919: -208,000 (Spanish flu pandemic)

4. 1948: -180,000 (taking a breather from increases immediately after World War II)

5. 1971: -175,000 (birth of Generation X)

6. 1922: -173,000 (taking a breather from increases immediately after World War I)

7. 1944: -165,000 (World War II)

8. 1966: -154,000 (birth of Generation X)

9. 2020: -143,000 (Covid pandemic)

10. 1933: -133,000 (Great Depression)

The birth years of Generation X account for 4 of the 10 largest annual declines in births (1965, 1966, 1971, and 1972). The original "baby bust" generation was born during the years 1965 through 1976. 

The third largest decline in births, in 1919, was a consequence of the Spanish flu pandemic. It remains to be seen whether the coronavirus pandemic will lead to a larger decline in births in 2021 than in 2020, but it's a possibility. Here's why. Covid's impact on births was fully realized only in the last month of 2020. December 2020 births were a substantial 8 percent below the number of births in December of 2019, a much larger decline than in any other month of the year. Most of those December births were conceived in March, at the very beginning of the pandemic. It's likely there also will be a substantial decline in the number of births conceived during the months of April, May, and June of 2020, reflecting the hesitancy of young adults to have children in the midst of a growing pandemic. The 2021 decline in births, if there is one, could be larger than the one in 2020.

Source: Demo Memo analysis of National Center for Health Statistics and Census Bureau data

Births in 2020: The Covid Baby Bust Begins

The number of births in the United States fell to 3,605,201 in 2020, the smallest number since 1979 and 143,000 fewer than in 2019. Behind the large drop in births is the ongoing fertility decline among American women as well as the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.  

Births peaked in the U.S. in 2007, when 4.3 million babies were born. The 2020 figure is 16 percent below that peak and 4 percent below the 2019 number. The birth decline intensified as 2020 progressed, according to National Center for Health Statistics data. In the first six months of the year, monthly births were about 2 percent below the 2019 numbers. By December 2020, they were 8 percent below what they had been a year earlier.  

Number of births for selected years (in 000s)

2020: 3,605
2019: 3,748
2018: 3,792
2017: 3,856
2016: 3,946
2015: 3,978 
2007: 4,316 (record high)

The number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 (the general fertility rate) fell to 55.8 in 2020. This was 4 percent lower than in 2019 and a new record low. 

The fertility decline is occurring in most age groups, with birth rates for women aged 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29 hitting new record lows in 2020. The fertility rate of 20-to-24-year-olds has fallen by a stunning 40 percent since 2007. 

The total fertility rate—the number of births a woman can expect in her lifetime given current age-specific fertility rates—fell to a record low of 1.637.5 in 2020. This is well below the 2.1 replacement level. "The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and has consistently been below replacement since 2007," NCHS reports.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2020

Don't Expect a Baby Boom

If you think the Covid-19 stay-at-home orders will lead to a boom in births next year, think again. Rather than a boom, expect a "large, lasting baby bust," according to a Brookings analysis. Researchers Melissa S. Kearney and Phillip Levine estimate that the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus will result in 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births in 2021 than would normally have occurred. They come to this conclusion after studying the fertility decline of the Great Recession and the 1918 Spanish Flu.

Birth rates, they point out, are pro-cyclical. They rise when times are good and fall when times are bad. These are very bad times. "An analysis of the Great Recession leads us to predict that women will have many fewer babies in the short term, and for some of them, a lower total number of children over their lifetimes," say the researchers. If the unemployment rate remains high in 2021 and beyond, the Covid baby bust could be even worse than they estimate, the researchers warn. Many more births will be delayed, and some births will never happen. The Covid-19 baby bust will be "yet another cost of this terrible episode," they conclude.

Source: Brookings Institution, Half a Million Fewer Children? The Coming COVID Baby Bust

Births Decline Again in 2019, Record Low Fertility Rate

The decline continues. The number of babies born in the U.S. fell to 3,745,540 in 2019, the smallest number since 1985, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Except for a small increase in 2014, the number of births has fallen in every year since 2007. The ongoing baby bust, once thought to be a temporary consequence of the Great Recession, instead is revealing itself to be a permanent shift in American fertility.

Number of births (in 000s)
2019: 3,746
2018: 3,792
2017: 3,856
2016: 3,946
2015: 3,978 
2014: 3,988
2013: 3,932
2012: 3,953
2011: 3,954
2010: 3,999 
2009: 4,131
2008: 4,248
2007: 4,316 (record high)

The number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 (the general fertility rate) fell to 58.2 in 2019. This was 2 percent lower than in 2018 and a new record low. The fertility decline is occurring in most age groups, with birth rates for women aged 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29 hitting new record lows in 2019. The birth rates of women aged 30 to 34 and 35 to 39 were unchanged in 2019, as was the rate for women aged 45 to 49. The birth rate increased in 2019 only among women aged 40 to 44, a trend that has been ongoing since 1985. 

The total fertility rate—the number of births a woman can expect in her lifetime given current age-specific fertility rates—fell to a record low of 1.705 in 2019. This is well below the 2.1 replacement level. "The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement since 2007," NCHS states.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2019 (PDF)

100 Years of Baby Names

Over the past century, James has been the number-one most popular boy's name, according to the Social Security Administration. Between 1919 and 2018, nearly 5 million boys have been named James. The second and third most popular boys' names of the past century are John and Robert, followed by Michael, William, David, Richard, Joseph, Thomas, and Charles, to round out the top 10.

James is still a popular name. During the decade of the 2010s, it was in 9th place on the top-10 list. William and Michael were also on the 2010s list—in 5th and 7th place. The number-one boys' name of the past decade, however, was Noah. Also making an appearance on the top-10 list of the 2010s were Liam, Jacob, Mason, Ethan, Alexander, and Elijah.

Girls' names are more diverse than boys' names. All told, 35 million boys have received one of the top 10 names of the century compared to 15 million girls. Mary is the number-one most popular girls' name of the past 100 years. Between 1919 and 2018, 3.3 million girls have been named Mary. Other girls' names on top of the century list are Patricia, Jennifer, Linda, Elizabeth, Barbara, Susan, Jessica, Sarah, and Karen.

None of those names appear on the top-10 list of girls' names of the 2010s. Emma was the number-one girls' name of the past decade, followed by Sophia, Olivia, Isabella, Ava, Mia, Abigail, Emily, Madison, and Charlotte. The name Mary ranked a lowly 125th in popularity in the 2010s.

For a look at how names have changed over the past 100 years, here are the three most popular boys' and girls' names in each decade...

The 3 most popular names for boys by decade
2010s: Noah, Liam, Jacob
2000s: Jacob, Michael, Joshua
1990s: Michael, Christopher, Matthew
1980s: Michael, Christopher, Matthew
1970s: Michael, Christopher, Jason
1960s: Michael, David, John
1950s: James, Michael, Robert
1940s: James, Robert, John
1930s: Robert, James, John
1920s: Robert, John, James

The 3 most popular names for girls by decade
2010s: Emma, Sophia, Olivia
2000s: Emily, Madison, Emma
1990s: Jessica, Ashley, Emily
1980s: Jessica, Jennifer, Amanda
1970s: Jennifer, Amy, Melissa
1960s: Lisa, Mary, Susan
1950s: Mary, Linda, Patricia
1940s: Mary, Linda, Barbara
1930s: Mary, Betty, Barbara
1920s: Mary, Dorothy, Helen

Note: Alexa was the 90th most popular girls' name in 2018, the most recent year for which data are available. This ranking is well below Alexa's peak a few years earlier. It was the 32nd most popular girls' name in 2015—the same year Amazon introduced its Alexa to the general public.

Source: Demo Memo analysis of the Social Security Administration's Popular Baby Names by Decade

2010s: Slowest Population Growth in U.S. History?

We await the April 1, 2020 census datapoint, but so far it looks like the 2010s will go down in U.S. history as the decade with the slowest population growth. In the years between April 1, 2010 and July 1, 2019, the U.S. population grew by just 6.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's newly released population estimates for 2019. When the April 1, 2020 census count is released next year, the growth rate of the 2010s is likely to remain below the current record low of 7.3 percent recorded in the 1930s.

U.S. population growth by decade has been slowing since the 1950s. During the 1950s, the population grew by 18.5 percent—more than double the growth of the 1930s—coinciding with the birth of the baby-boom generation. In every decade since, population growth has been slower than in the previous decade with the exception of the 1990s...

Percent change in U.S. population by decade
2010 to 2019: 6.3% (incomplete data)
2000 to 2010: 9.7%
1990 to 2000: 13.1%
1980 to 1990: 9.8%
1970 to 1980: 11.4%
1960 to 1970: 13.4%
1950 to 1960: 18.5%
1940 to 1950: 14.5%
1930 to 1940: 7.3% (record low)

Note: Percent changes by decade are calculated using April 1 census counts except for 2010 to 2019, which is the percent change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.

There are two reasons for the slow rate of population growth during this decade. The ongoing baby bust is one reason, with the fertility rate at a record low. The annual rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) fell from 4.7 to just 2.9 per 1,000 population from 2010 to 2019. The number of people added to the population each year through natural increase fell from 1.5 million between 2010 and 2011 to just 957,000 between 2018 and 2019.

Falling net migration (immigrants minus emigrants) is the other factor that has resulted in what is likely to be the slowest decade of population growth in U.S. history. The annual rate of net migration fell from 2.5 to 1.8 per 1,000 population from 2010 to 2019. The population gain from net migration during this decade peaked at more than 1 million in 2015 and 2016. But between 2018 and 2019, a net of only 595,000 migrants were added to the population.

Source: Census Bureau, National Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010—2019

Number of Births in 2018 Lowest Since 1986

The final numbers are in. There were only 3,791,712 births in 2018, according to the National Center for Health Statistics report, Births Final Data for 2018. While this is a tad more than the number reported provisionally back in May (3,788,235), the additional 3,477 births included in the final number did not reverse the trend. The number of births in 2018 was the smallest since 1986. It was 63,788 less than the number of births in 2017, and it was more than 500,000 below the all-time high of 4.3 million in 2007. The 2018 fertility rate—the number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44—dropped to a record low of 59.1.

Have we hit bottom? Hard to tell. According to the NCHS vital statistics rapid release program, the fertility rate was significantly higher (58.6) in the second quarter of 2019 than it was in the second quarter of 2018 (58.3). While not much of an increase, it could indicate an end to the decline. But the first quarter number suggested the opposite. The fertility rate in the first quarter of 2019 was significantly lower (55.9) than in the first-quarter of 2018 (57.2). Stay tuned.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data, Births: Final Data for 2018

Births by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2018

Non-Hispanic Whites accounted for the 52 percent majority of women who gave birth in 2018, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Another 23 percent were Hispanic, 15 percent were non-Hispanic Black, and 6 percent were non-Hispanic Asian.

In 12 states, minorities accounted for the majority of births: Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Maryland, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York. Minorities also accounted for the majority of births in the District of Columbia.

At the other extreme, non-Hispanic Whites accounted for more than 80 percent of births in six states: Montana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia. In Vermont and West Virginia, more than 90 percent of births in 2018 were to non-Hispanic Whites.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2018 (PDF)

Since 2007 Peak, Births Have Fallen in 49 States

The annual number of births in the United States peaked in 2007 at 4.3 million. Since then, births have fallen in every year but one. This ongoing baby bust is widespread, being felt in nearly every state. North Dakota is the only state in which 2018 births surpassed 2007 births—by a large 20.3 percent. The District of Columbia experienced a 3.9 percent increase in births between those years. But these gains are old news. The annual number of births has been falling in North Dakota since 2014 and in the District of Columbia since 2016.

Apart from North Dakota and the District of Columbia, these are the five states in which the baby bust is having the smallest impact...

Percent change in births, 2007 to 2018
-3.0% in South Dakota
-3.3% in Washington
-5.6% in Nebraska
-7.0% in Tennessee
-7.4% in Florida

These are the five states in which the baby bust is having the biggest impact...

Percent change in births, 2007 to 2018
-24.9% in New Mexico
-21.6% in Arizona
-20.4% in Mississippi
-19.9% in Illinois
-19.8% in California

Looking at the latest annual trend, the number of births fell in all but three states between 2017 and 2018. The only exceptions were Missouri, Maine, and New Jersey. The increases in those states were minuscule, however, ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 percent.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2018 (PDF)

Births in 2018 Lowest in 32 years

Only 3,788,235 babies were born in the U.S. in 2018—the fewest births since 1986, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Except for a small increase in 2014, the number of births has fallen in every year since 2007.

Number of births (in 000s)
2018: 3,788
2017: 3,856
2016: 3,946
2015: 3,978 
2014: 3,988
2013: 3,932
2012: 3,953
2011: 3,954
2010: 3,999 
2009: 4,131
2008: 4,248
2007: 4,316 (record high)

Records were broken again and again in 2018. The number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 (the general fertility rate) fell to a record low of 59.0 in 2018. The birth rates for women aged 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29 hit new record lows in 2018. The total fertility rate—the number of births a woman can expect in her lifetime given current age-specific fertility rates—fell to a record low of 1.728 in 2018. This is well below the 2.1 replacement level. "The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement for the last decade," notes the NCHS report.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2018 (PDF)

Baby Food Spending Plunges

The ongoing baby bust is being felt in at least one grocery store aisle. Average household spending on baby food fell 64 percent between 2007 (the year births peaked in the U.S.) and 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Average household spending on baby food (in 2017 dollars)
2017: $18.16
2010: $40.19
2007: $50.05

Beyond the decline in births, the other factor dragging down spending on baby food is the greater propensity of parents to make their own rather than relying on the store bought variety. That helps to explain why spending on baby food fell more than twice as much as spending on infants' clothes during the past decade. Between 2007 and 2017, average household spending on clothes for children under age 2 fell from $110 to $77, after adjusting for inflation—a 30 percent decline.

Source: Demo Memo analysis of the Consumer Expenditure Survey

42% of New Mothers Have a Bachelor's Degree

More than 40 percent of women who gave birth in 2017 had a bachelor's degree or more education, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The 41.7 percent of of new mothers with at least a bachelor's degree in 2017 is nearly twice the 22.8 percent of 1997.

The percentage of new mothers with a bachelor's degree or more education varies by race and Hispanic origin...

Percentage of new mothers with at least a bachelor's degree, 2017
67.9% of Asians
51.3% of non-Hispanic Whites
24.6% of Blacks
18.9% of Hispanics
13.2% of Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders
12.7% of American Indians, Alaska Natives

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Educational Attainment of Mothers Aged 25 and Over: United States, 2017

Below-Replacement Fertility in 48 States

The average woman in the United States will have 1.8 children in her lifetime, according to the age-specific fertility rates of 2017. This calculation, called a "total fertility rate" (TFR), is well below the 2.1 children the average woman would have based on age-specific fertility rates in 2007—the year the number of births in the U.S. peaked. A TFR of 2.1 is considered replacement level—meaning the population will neither grow nor decline, absent immigration. A TFR below 2.1, if extended for decades, will eventually lead to population decline.

Every state had a lower TFR in 2017 than it did a decade earlier. Here are comparisons between then and now...

• In 2017, only 2 states had at least replacement-level fertility (South Dakota and Utah). In 2007, more than half the states (27) had a TFR of 2.1 or higher. 
• In 2017, the lowest TFR was in Washington D.C., at 1.4. This was well below the lowest TFR in 2007, which was 1.7 in Vermont. 
• The highest TFR in 2017 was 2.2 in South Dakota, followed by 2.1 in Utah. In 2007, the highest TFR was 2.6 in Utah.  
• Between 2007 and 2017, the biggest declines in TFR (more than 20 percent) occurred in eight states: Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Georgia, and Texas. 
• Between 2007 and 2017, the smallest declines in TFR (below 10 percent) occurred in six states: Iowa, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, South Dakota, and North Dakota. 

In 2017, non-Hispanic White women had a TFR below the replacement level of 2.1 in every state, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Black women had a TFR at or above replacement level in 12 states, Hispanic women in 29 states.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data, Total Fertility Rates by State and Race and Hispanic Origin: United States, 2017 and Births: Final Data for 2007

10 Questions: An Update (Part 1)

Two years ago Demo Memo presented 10 vital demographic questions and asked how many answers to these questions we would have once we had more data in hand. Two years later, the same questions are still of great importance. We have more data. So how much more do we know? Let's take a look...

1. When will the baby bust end? We now know it might not end. The decline in births since the 2007 peak is as great as the decline in the aftermath of the Great Depression (a 10.7 percent drop). But this may be more than a dip in the road. An analysis by the Center for Retirement Research suggests the fertility decline may be permanent, driven by structural changes in childbearing patterns. The United States appears to be adopting the low-fertility regime common in other developed countries.

2. Why is life expectancy declining? In two of the past three years, life expectancy in the United States has declined. We now know that the declines in 2015 and 2017 were due in large part to rising mortality rates among people under age 65—primarily from drug overdoses and suicides. The biggest increases in drug overdoses and suicide rates have occurred in rural areas—see Question 4, below.

3. Will homeownership make a comeback? The homeownership rate hit a post-Great Recession low of 63.4 percent in 2016, then climbed to 63.9 percent in 2017—the first statistically significant rise in more than a decade. While the increase is encouraging, the homeownership rate is unlikely to return to the highs of the early 2000s. The Millennial generation—now at the age of first-time home buying—is burdened by student loan payments. Student loans delay homeownership by 7 years, according to the National Association of Realtors. Consequently, the age of first-time home buying (the age at which the homeownership rate first surpasses 50 percent) has shifted from the early to the late thirties.

4. What will save small town and rural America? Corporate America will not be coming to the rescue, judging by Amazon's choice to place its second headquarters in two of the largest and richest metropolitan areas in the country. The continuing allure of urban areas makes this question more important than ever—and we don't yet have any answers. But we may know more about why rural areas are falling behind. A statistical concept called "gambler's ruin" explains it, says economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The gambler (small town or rural area) who starts with the fewest pennies (economic opportunities) is the one most likely to go bankrupt. Small towns and rural America have a shrinking pile of pennies to play with and are increasingly likely to face ruin because of it. We still don't know how to solve this problem or even if we can.

5. When will Millennials marry? The median age at first marriage continues to rise, reaching a new record high in 2017 of 27.8 years for women and 29.8 years for men. Why are Millennials delaying marriage? One reason is that a much larger share of them go to college, which delays marriage and childbearing. Another reason is student loan debt, which not only delays homeownership but also marriage, according to the National Association of Realtors.

To be continued tomorrow...

Decline in Births Now Equals Great Depression Drop

Since peaking in 2007, the annual number of births in the United States has fallen 10.7 percent. This number has significance: it is equal to the decline in births that occurred during the Great Depression. Among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, the decline has been even greater...

Number of births by race and Hispanic origin in 2017 (and percent change since 2007)
Total: 3,853,472 (–10.7)
Asian: 249,214 (–2.1%)
Black: 560,560 (–10.6%)
Hispanic: 897,518 (–15.5%)
Non-Hispanic White: 1,991,348 (–13.8%)

But the current birth decline differs from the Great Depression decline in two ways. One, the Great Depression decline occurred over a four-year period while the current decline is ten years old and counting. Two, the Great Depression decline ended as the economy improved while the current decline has deepened with the improving economy. According to the Center for Retirement Research, the ongoing decline in the midst of a booming economy suggests that we may be in "a slow drift" to the low fertility levels of some other developed countries.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data

Number of Non-Hispanic Whites Peaked in 2015

The number of non-Hispanic Whites in the United States peaked in 2015, according to the Census Bureau's 2017 population estimates. Between 2015 and 2017, the non-Hispanic White population declined by 41,000.

The shrinking of the non-Hispanic White population is occurring sooner than expected. The Census Bureau's latest population projections, released earlier this year, show the number of non-Hispanic Whites increasing until 2023 and peaking at 198.7 million. Instead, the number of non-Hispanic Whites peaked in 2015 at 197.8 million—eight years sooner and about 1 million shy of the forecast.

Number of non-Hispanic Whites
2017: 197,803,083
2016: 197,834,599
2015: 197,844,074 (peak)
2010: 197,389,247

The ongoing baby bust is one of the factors behind the early peak in the number of non-Hispanic Whites. Between 2007 and 2016, the number of births to non-Hispanic Whites fell 11 percent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. At the same time, the number of non-Hispanic White deaths increased because of the aging of the population and the rise in mortality rates among the middle-aged. Deaths now exceed births among non-Hispanic Whites.

Source: Census Bureau, National Population by Characteristics: 2010-2017