Michigan's Births Lowest Since 1944

[Towne Cluber]

"I love the uneducated". Truer words were never spoken. The problem with people who know nothing is that they think they know everything. You would be Exhibit A.

If you truly believe that Michigan's overall birth rate has dropped because Wayne county has lots of abortions [[even though Wayne had far more abortions in the past) and because gay males can't give birth [[even though they also couldn't give birth in the past), there's no point to continuing the conversation, because you're impervious to reality.

Some idiot on Fox told you people aren't having babies because of those damn gays and that stupid Constitution and here you are blabbering on about it like a good parrot.

Please, for the love of God, turn off whatever you've been tuning into and educate yourself. Gays and the Constitution have nothing to do with birth rates. It's [[most likely) economics and culture. Young people have more debt and no longer feel obligated to often religious-rooted expectations.

Here you go again bringing up Trump/Fox to a completely unrelated topic in an attempt to distract from your own poor education, reasoning, and comprehension. Funny how you two are so alike.

Please educate us again about the Rochester Hills Whole Foods being closer to most of Bloomfield than the Birmingham/West Bloomfield locations. Please educate us again about Metro Detroit’s Jewish population being quite small and only in Oak Park and West Bloomfield. Please educate us again about you living at 14 and Woodward, then changing the story to 15 and Woodward, but somehow never driving by 13 and Woodward. Please educate us again on your bogus claims about Metro Detroit private schools. Please educate us again that Gilbert’s Hudson site development isn’t really happening and is just an elaborate hoax. Please educate us again about how Kwame Kilpatrick didn’t have any bad policies. Please educate us again about Huntington Woods not having any commercial tax base. The list of your lies is endless.

[Meddle]

Let me go ahead and give you one big REAL reason why the birth rate is so low. - MONEY

Already said that a few posts back. I'd venture to say that even adjusted for inflation, it cost less to raise a kid to 18 years back in the 50s and 60s that it does today to get them to 18 months.

[archfan]

Already said that a few posts back. I'd venture to say that even adjusted for inflation, it cost less to raise a kid to 18 years back in the 50s and 60s that it does today to get them to 18 months.

According to this 2010 article, it was up, but not as much as I expected:

It cost $25,299 to raise a child from birth to age 18 in 1960. The amount rose to $226,920 last year. This may be one of the many reasons Americans are having fewer children these days.

Adjusted for inflation, the 1960 sum equals about $192,497 compared to $235,996 in 2010, about a 22% increase. Neither number paints a complete picture. Median household income rose 25% between 1960 and 2010. The cost of raising a child is, in comparison to income over the 50-year period, up very modestly.

Here's a more recent article.

[Bham1982]

It isn't just the cost, it's the time/effort. In past generations, kids just kinda existed. Now every moment of the day is programmed.

Research shows that full-time working moms spend more time/are more engaged with their kids than stay-at-home moms from 40 years ago. In the past, they would just run around outside half the year, unsupervised. Now you have soccer/language/music/academic enrichment/art/swimming classes. Kids get private tutors in elementary school.

Dads used to spend all weekends golfing or drinking with their buddies. Now that would be valid grounds for divorce and child neglect. Parents would be smoking in the car, while the kids were bouncing around the station wagon back seat. Now that would put you in jail.

All things considered, I think kids are raised much better today, and parents have healthier relationships with their offspring. But it's hard work, and not for everyone.

[oladub]

archfan, Good article. Considering that a much larger percentage of mothers are working, family income has not kept up. Perhaps official inflation numbers do not actually keep up with actual inflation. Some of the additional income has to be used for daycare and fast food. Rural child raising is cheaper but incomes are lower in rural areas too. The solidly blue northeast has the highest child raising costs. I wondered why child raising would be modestly more expensive in the south than in the midwest. Could it be the additional cost of the "academies" that whites often send their children to in lieu of segregated schools? The 10% of children receiving private educations and 3-4% being home schooled were interesting numbers and no confidence votes in public schools.

Last summer, I slept in a state park campground for the first time in many many, years. My recollection is that such parks used to have a lot of families with 2-4 kids sleeping in tents. This campground had a lot of RVs with one child. It could be that personal choices intertwined with corporate/governmental wishes/requirements have altered the popularity of family vs. other things.

[Meddle]

According to this 2010, it was up, but not as much as I expected:

[I]It cost $25,299 to raise a child from birth to age 18 in 1960. The amount rose to $226,920 last year. This may be one of the many reasons Americans are having fewer children these days.

It can cost that just to HAVE a kid. Medical and related expenses for the nine months before and after can be astounding.

[Bham1982]

Another illustration of Michigan's coming demographic crisis. GP Schools have plummeting enrollment, with 750 districtwide in graduating class and 450 districtwide in lower grades.

Within 10 years, GP will have one high school, and will have to cut a number of elementary/middles. And there's no way in hell they're going to open enrollment, so they'll probably shrink indefinitely.

Even Affluent Districts like Grosse Pointe are Struggling:
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/...te/3212108002/

Also, wealth has shifted out of the Pointes, and there's no room to build new housing, so the district is stuck. The only districts in Metro Detroit that are growing are those with immigrants or new housing, and the Pointes have neither.

[archfan]

Another illustration of Michigan's coming demographic crisis. GP Schools have plummeting enrollment, with 750 districtwide in graduating class and 450 districtwide in lower grades.

Within 10 years, GP will have one high school, and will have to cut a number of elementary/middles. And there's no way in hell they're going to open enrollment, so they'll probably shrink indefinitely.

Even Affluent Districts like Grosse Pointe are Struggling:
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/...te/3212108002/

Also, wealth has shifted out of the Pointes, and there's no room to build new housing, so the district is stuck. The only districts in Metro Detroit that are growing are those with immigrants or new housing, and the Pointes have neither.

In the West Bloomfield/Farmington area, I can think of two schools torn down and immediately replaced by retirement communities. That's the demographic change in a nutshell.

[Bham1982]

In the West Bloomfield/Farmington area, I can think of two schools torn down and immediately replaced by retirement communities. That's the demographic change in a nutshell.

Good example, and I can see the same thing happening in GP.

But those districts have advantages not shared by the Pointes. They both went to open enrollment to maintain numbers. The Pointes will never do that [[I don't think).

Also, those districts, while good, never had outstanding performance and don't fund their schools like the Pointes. They're generally surrounded by higher or equal performing districts so can go open enrollment. It's different if you're neighboring Bloomfield Hills and Novi as opposed to Detroit and Harper Woods.

[Towne Cluber]

Also, those districts, while good, never had outstanding performance...

It is not at all accurate to say that West Bloomfield and Farmington schools never had outstanding performance.

Here is some admissions data from UofM from 2004-2009.

https://www.michigandaily.com/content/feeder-schools

[Bham1982]

It is not at all accurate to say that West Bloomfield and Farmington schools never had outstanding performance.

Yes, it's absolutely accurate to say neither district had outstanding performance. Neither district has every been ranked among the top statewide. In contrast, the Pointes have [[traditionally) been ranked among the top statewide, but no longer.

Top districts in Metro Detroit are [[more or less) Bloomfield, Troy, Birmingham, Novi, Northville, Rochester.

Here is some admissions data from UofM from 2004-2009.

OK? What does this have to do with anything?

What do the number of students enrolling at a university have to do with the district's overall academic performance relative to other districts?

Cass Tech is a huge feeder to U-M, that does not mean DPS is a top district. Ann Arbor are the biggest feeder schools to U-M, that does not mean AA schools are as high performing as [[say) Bloomfield or Novi.

[Zacha341]

I have no comment re. the gay community relative to birth rates or child rearing. But to ignore abortions impact [[rather you're pro or con) upon populations and demographics [[including Wayne county) is to ignore history and current realities.

Abortion is hardly a neutral/ benign factor [[decline or increase) upon hard population numbers and community segments.

Especially in communities where abortion rates are disproportionately high.

Except none of this has anything to do with anything. Read before commenting.

We aren't discussing Wayne County, or whether or not it has higher abortion rates than other counties, or whether gay couples have fewer kids than straight couples.

As has already been discussed, abortion rates are at record lows and gays aren't some "new thing".

Therefore ascribing recent declines in statewide birth rates to either abortion or gay couples is nonsense.

[Zacha341]

Indeed there's a decrease in having children among some demographics/ groups. On the other hand culture, religion and economics specifically inform the continuance of others towards large families.

I just say those opting out solely for the sake of politics need know that their choice may have little influence on what others do.

...Please, for the love of God, turn off whatever you've been tuning into and educate yourself. Gays and the Constitution have nothing to do with birth rates. It's [[most likely) economics and culture. Young people have more debt and no longer feel obligated to often religious-rooted expectations.

[Towne Cluber]

Yes, it's absolutely accurate to say neither district had outstanding performance. Neither district has every been ranked among the top statewide. In contrast, the Pointes have [[traditionally) been ranked among the top statewide, but no longer.

Top districts in Metro Detroit are [[more or less) Bloomfield, Troy, Birmingham, Novi, Northville, Rochester.


OK? What does this have to do with anything?

What do the number of students enrolling at a university have to do with the district's overall academic performance relative to other districts?

Cass Tech is a huge feeder to U-M, that does not mean DPS is a top district. Ann Arbor are the biggest feeder schools to U-M, that does not mean AA schools are as high performing as [[say) Bloomfield or Novi.

At least your analysis of top public schools is as bad as your analysis of top private schools.

DPS has multiple high schools, West Bloomfield has one and Farmington has two. To try to make the analogy that you did here is not only intellectually dishonest but it doesn’t even pass the common sense test.

Ann Arbor schools are in fact high performing. Rochester has 3 high schools and one of them is not as highly regarded as the other two. Grosse Pointe Schools are still highly ranked. West Bloomfield is still good but pre-2000s or so were very highly regarded.

[mwilbert]

Population isn't the only determinant. Michigan has about 60% of the geographic area as California.

Since we don't build roads in the Great Lakes, the relevant percentage is about 40%. [[A huge proportion of Michigan's area is water, which is not true of California).