Go forth and multiply--just not here

The New York Times reports that, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. experienced a record number of births in 2006, the most since 1961:

For the first time in 35 years, America’s total fertility rate — the estimated number of children a woman will have in her lifetime — reached 2.1, the theoretical level required to maintain the country’s population

The national birth rate (the number of births per 1,000 women) was 68.5.  It was highest in Utah, at 94.1 births per 1,000 women, and lowest in

states won by John Kerry in 2004, including Vermont (52.2), New Hampshire (53.4), Maine (54.5), Rhode Island (54.6) and Massachusetts (57)

Economists and demographers quoted in the article have some interesting theories as to why births were up.

One is the housing boom of the last few years.  The theory is that as houses get bigger, with more bedrooms, you need to fill up those bedrooms.  Making babies is one way to do that.  I'm not making this up:

In 2006, the babies arrived — a reminder, perhaps, that if you build it, they will toddle. 

Is real estate destiny?  “It’s something a bunch of us have been thinking about,” said Morris A. Davis, an assistant professor of real estate and urban land economics at the University of Wisconsin--Madison School of Business. “If you reduce down-payment constraints, more people can buy homes, or buy bigger homes. Does that encourage them to have more kids? I would say nobody knows.”

Another economist, Matt Kahn at UCLA, argues that

For decades, Americans have built increasingly bigger houses, even as family size declined. Bigger houses mean incentives to stay home and fructify, Mr. Kahn said.

So the question is why there's not as much fructifying in Vermont as in  any other state.

Could be that there just aren't as many new big homes in Vermont.  Maybe Vermonters didn't build as many houses because of Act 250, which made it more difficult to site housing developments.  Perhaps Act 250 should take into consideration the impact of new housing development on the ability of Vermonters to fructify. 

There are some other factors to consider as well:  The babies born today do not look like the babies born in  1961, nor do their parents:

For starters, they are much more likely to be Hispanic, to live in a red state and to be part of an evangelical Christian family.

There are some clear policy implications for Vermont here.  If policy makers are concerned about Vermont's low fertility rate, declining labor force, and general demographic trends, they could consider running free buses from the Mexican border to Vermont ski areas. 

Or possibly give tax incentives through Efficiency Vermont to evangelical families, through their churches of course.  The theory is that if evangelicals have more children, then their household energy use on a per capita basis will be less than a couple of young professionals without any kids.  Finally, we could amend the Vermont constitution to give anyone voting Republican two votes.  That ought to encourage more red staters to migrate to Vermont.

Presto.  Vermont's fertility problem solved.

Comments

[Jon Harrison]

Two votes for anyone voting Republican - at last we have a formula for turning this state around!

[Mister Guy]

I just *love* this site! Support Act 250 and you hate new babies...a new high in VT political discourse...love it! You guys are always good for a laugh and a smile... :)

BTW, anti-Hispanic much? Immigration is basically the only reason that our country's population has been growing in recent years. You should be thanking those immigrants for keeping this country alive. I don't think we need any more Bible-thumpers here, but if they would like to come to VT...more power to them.

Now if we could only figure out a way to secure our borders and assimilate all those immigrants.

"Finally, we could amend the Vermont constitution to give anyone voting Republican two votes."

Isn't that what you guys already think of IRV?

[Hunter Melville]

When I think of Vermont and Bible-Thumpers, I always recall the bureaucrats and the State Police raiding the Island Pond Community.

Don't worry, the country got a clear view of Vermont's view of religious freedom, so I doubt you'll see too many evangelicals moving up with their child-rearing ways. Now atheists? That's a different matter. I wonder how many births they have per 1000 women.

[Mister Guy]

Funny...when I think of Bible-thumpers, I think of the anti-gay nonsense of the civil union "debate" not that long ago...