Vance’s approach to reversing U.S. birth trends is wrong

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance’s past remarks on Americans who opt not to have children have struck a nerve during a tense presidential election season.

Unearthed and popularized by his opponents, Vance’s 2021 castigation of Democratic Party leaders as “childless cat ladies” and his depiction of Democrats as a party whose “entire future … is controlled by people without children” has created a firestorm, prompting actress Jennifer Aniston, among many others, to take understandable umbrage.

In that interview three years ago with Tucker Carlson, Vance took his position a step further, questioning whether those forgoing parenthood should enjoy the same status as those who procreate. “And how does it make sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a stake in it?” he asked rhetorically.

Since his selection as former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Vance has been given several opportunities to clarify matters. He’s chosen mainly to double down, ascribing any number of societal ills to America’s historically low birth rate.

The quotes rightly are viewed as insulting to those who for any number of reasons, ranging from infertility to simple personal preference, don’t procreate. But Vance isn’t wrong to draw attention to a U.S. birth rate that last year fell to 1.62 births per woman, the lowest since the U.S. began keeping records in the 1930s, according to the Wall Street Journal, and well below the rate of 2.1 needed to keep the nation’s population stable.

There are numerous reasons for the trend, which, by the way, holds for much of the Western world. The cost of raising a child to age 18 has ballooned to more than $300,000 on average for a middle-class family of four, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The daunting cost of raising a family in all likelihood is the biggest factor.

Other explanations include the relaxation of societal expectations for women to have kids. What once was a significant stigma — going childless — no longer remains so in most parts of the country. More women deciding not to raise children means that those making that choice are in good company without kids in tow. In this day and age, a fulfilling life is widely available regardless of marital status, coupledom or children. As it should be.

Also contributing to the trend is that professional women who become mothers often still are penalized in terms of workplace advancement and pay.

The low birth rate, however, carries with it serious future consequences for the country. A graying society, which already was occurring thanks to the aging bulge of baby boomers, means that the costs of the safety net for seniors — principally Social Security and Medicare — grow while the younger workers paying taxes to finance those benefits decline. Without revenue increases or benefit reductions or both, Social Security and Medicare both are on a path to insolvency.

The needs for national defense and an adequate workforce necessary to sustain a thriving economy also are negatively affected by low fertility.

In short, a declining population leads to a declining nation. Immigration can help make up for some of the loss, but probably not fully, if this low birth rate persists.

So what to do? First, here’s what not to do: Continue as Vance has done to attempt to “shame” childless couples into having kids. In addition to being counterproductive — any amateur psychologist knows such a tack only will cause existing views to harden — claiming that those choosing not to raise children are somehow less patriotic or should have less of a say in the future of the country is un-American. This country was founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taken at face value, Vance’s apparent point of view negates the last two of those principles.

What we’d like to see is both parties (absent the Vance-style character judgments) acknowledge that the low birth rate is a problem and that encouraging more people to have children is a positive. There are many in this country who would start families if they thought they could afford it, as well as those who are ambivalent and those for whom the cost barrier is the deciding factor in the “no” column.

The U.S. is a laggard in the Western world when it comes to supporting families financially. Many other nations cover the cost of child care in the early years — a cost that’s become exorbitant in the U.S. For example, Japan, which knows it has one of the oldest populations among developed nations, has been a leader in recent years in investing heavily in making parenthood easier and is seeing some positive results.

Neither political party here has a monopoly on ideas for improving the situation. Both ought to make the issue a priority and work together to make it easier and more affordable for young couples and singles interested in starting families to do so.

The private sector has a role to play as well. Making a conscious effort to eliminate the professional penalties women (and sometimes men, too) suffer when they become parents should be a part of this discussion.