The declining birth rate has been a major topic of discussion, with governments all over the world trying to find ways to reverse it.
U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly looked at giving women a “baby bonus” of $5,000, lawmakers have looked at making childbirth free for privately insured families and others have pushed to tie states’ transportation funding to their birth and marriage rates.
There is a constantly evolving discussion about the causes of the decline, which include financial concerns and cultural shifts, and repeated debate about the best ways to deal with it.
But it may not be clear why this is such a prominent topic right now – for conservative pronatalists and economists alike – so Newsweek has backed up a bit to break down exactly what the concerns are.
The crux of the main issue is that “continued low fertility will lead to a very modest or even negative growth of the working age population,” demographer William Frey, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, told Newsweek.
“This means that there will be far fewer future workers to support a senior population either through government programs like pensions or health care, but also providing fewer younger workers to deal directly with health care,” he said.
But not everyone agrees, with sociologist and demographer Karen Benjamin Guzzo, the director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina, telling Newsweek: “I actually think the dangers of low birth rates are overblown.”
Although Guzzo does not deny the “economic impacts of low fertility,” she argues that depopulation “is neither imminent nor devastating” and that policymakers should look at economic and immigration policies as the answer.
Why Is The Declining Birth Rate Concerning?
A major issue is the prospect of an aging population, where the number of elderly exceeds the working-age individuals who support them.
For example, in the United States, the fertility rate (the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime) is now projected to average 1.60 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest forecast released this year. This is well below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration.
“This is especially crucial in countries like the U.S. and much of Europe which experienced a large baby boom in the immediate post-war decades- because these baby boomers are now exploding the size of the senior populations,” Frey said.
Beth Jarosz, a senior program director of U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, argued that the real issue comes not from an ageing population inherently, but “from failing to plan for an aging population.”
“A primary risk, as a population ages, is under-investment in children,” she told Newsweek. “As children make up an increasing share of the population, there will be increasing pressure on them to be healthy and productive. But as populations age, there may be pressure to invest more in senior-supporting programs than in child-supporting ones.”
Elon Musk has long been a major voice for concern over the birth rate decline, writing on X in April that “low birth rates will end civilization.”
But several demographers told Newsweek that this is not necessarily the case, arguing that there is a way to plan for a society with fewer births while inadvertently making it easier for people to have children at the same time.
“If pension and health care systems are designed to accommodate a new population structure, such as by automating jobs that were previously done by younger workers, or by adjusting pay-in or pay-out rates in a pension program, an aging population structure can be sustainable for a very long period of time,” Jarosz said.
She added: “Interestingly, the things that benefit ‘young’ communities are also those that benefit aging ones – walkable places, family-friendly workplace policies (like paid family leave, and work schedules that are predictable but can be flexible), and access to high-quality, affordable healthcare.”
Similarly, Guzzo cited a 2024 paper called “Fertility in High-Income Countries: Trends, Patterns, Determinants, and Consequences,” in the Annual Review of Economics, which said that “better education of children, increased labor force participation (particularly of women), increased investments in labor-saving technologies and later retirement will compensate for some potentially negative economic consequences.”
It called for “increased investment in the education and health of the next generation, who will be in the workforce over the coming decades and whose productivity is vital in guaranteeing economic prosperity; investments in productivity-enhancing areas such as infrastructure and basic and applied research; and fostering labor force participation of older workers by investing in population health and by modifying retirement policies to encourage later retirement.”
Is There Good News in the Birth Rate Decline?
While demographers, economists and sociologists agree on the challenges the declining birth rate could bring, some have argued that is also illustrative of societal progress—namely choice.
Newsweek broke down these arguments in detail here, with Global Health Economics Professor Margaret Anne McConnell saying, “Any time we see people being able to make fertility choices that suit their family, I think that’s a success.
“I think people choosing to have children later in life is also a success … To the extent that we can make it possible for people to reach whatever their desired family size is, I think that that would be a societal priority.”
“There are a lot of people for whom reductions in fertility represent their true preferences,” she said. “They were able to go to college and get a higher degree or take longer to choose a partner that they feel better about and those have very many positive elements. But I think the other are sort of underappreciated.”
The declining birth rate has taken place mostly among women in their teens and early 20s, with American mothers aged between 15 and 19 having seen the most consistently steep fall in the last 50 years.
In 1975, there were 599,926 teen births in America—more than double the teen pregnancies recorded in 2024 (136,376), according to the U.N. Population Division.
“These are births that are very often unintended,” Guzzo said.
“Young adults are less often having casual sex, and they’re more often using highly effective methods of contraception, like IUDs,” she continued. “Contraception allows people—but especially women—to plan their pregnancies so they can get education, have careers, find the right partner before having kids. It allows families to space their children the way they see fit.”
It remains to be seen how the American government, and other governments around the world, will respond to this major shift in society, but most experts push for policy changes that make things easier for parents.
This “would solve the problem for whom it is a problem,” McConnell said. “If you look at it from the lens of trying to get people to their fertility preferences, which is how I think we should look at it, there are a lot of areas where you could improve and have more babies if you supported people.”
Read Newsweek’s Full Interview With Beth Jarosz
Can you summarize the dangers of an aging population?
I don’t think there are dangers from aging, only from failing to plan for an aging population.
What are the primary economic risks a country faces when its birth rate falls below replacement level for an extended period?
A primary risk, as a population ages, is under-investment in children. As children make up an increasing share of the population, there will be increasing pressure on them to be healthy and productive. But as populations age, there may be pressure to invest more in senior-supporting programs than in child-supporting ones.
How does population aging change the structure and sustainability of pension and health-care systems?
If pension and health care systems are designed to accommodate a new population structure, such as by automating jobs that were previously done by younger workers, or by adjusting pay-in or pay-out rates in a pension program, an aging population structure can be sustainable for a very long period of time.
What social and cultural consequences follow from a rapidly aging society — for family structures, caregiving norms, urban design and mental health?
Interestingly, the things that benefit “young” communities are also those that benefit aging ones–walkable places, family-friendly workplace policies (like paid family leave, and work schedules that are predictable but can be flexible), and access to high quality, affordable healthcare.
How reliable are long-term population projections, and what are the main uncertainties that could change the outlook?
Population projections are always uncertain, but can be useful to help decisionmakers plan for the future. The sources of uncertainty that I’m wrestling with right now are questions like: How long will anti-immigration policies be in effect? How will extreme weather and dis-investment in health research affect mortality rates?
What is the worry for governments and what is the worry for ordinary civilians?
The thing I worry about is lack of planning. We know how to help a society age gracefully–by providing things like high quality healthcare, family-friendly workplace policies, accessible housing, and flexible transportation (including high quality transit and walkable communities). AARP’s Livability Index, for example, is filled with factors that matter. The question is: will leaders act in time?