Abortion rate is 23/1000 , they forgot to mention that?
The birth rate went down somewhat during the Great Depression, but was still much higher than today, when even poor people are better off than in the 1930s. The birth rate is not dropping because of economic problems. People have much higher expectations for more housing space per person, and for personal consumption. Babies interfere with that.
The other reason for dropping birth rate is incredible instability of marriages. Most Catholics and Protestant people are much less prepared for marriage than before.
Shouldnt this make cost of living in the state plummet?
Maybe, but if there are fewer people to buy and make things, maybe not.:shrug:
Not necessarily because it’s also big local government that keeps costs up.
No because people keep moving in. The part of California where I live has added something like 65,000 new jobs recently and what seems to me to be a lot of bad drivers. Housing is very expensive too.
I just returned home from a house hunting trip to Southern Cali. Yes, the housing market is reaching an unobtainable level. The government is not making the housing market afford either. City governments are adding Mello-Roos and other assessment fees on top of the regular property tax. So you’re basically renting to live there.
About 50% of California’s residents can afford to participate in the real estate market. I also noticed a trend in new home construction there. Companies are starting to build multi-generational homes which can house multiple families under one roof. People can also rent those unused units out for extra income.
Sad thing is that is still about 50% lower than New York in the past few years. They have had rates between 34-46/1000 over that last 2 decades.
It’s almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. High cost areas make it more difficult to comfortably start a family. That delays marriage and children which reduces the fertility rate because of the shrinking window of fertility. Delaying childen then allows for greater income potential which keeps the cost of living abnormally high. I’d be interested to see a study that shows fertility rate as a function of cost of living. I know it’s not the only factor, but I am curious if economics or political persuasion has a greater impact (the majority of sub replacement rate states are liberal or lean that way).
Abortions cost $300-$400 compared to a whopping $3,000 to $38,000 to deliver a baby – would now be a good time to ask when deliveries will become more affordable, or will that conversation never happen?** If abortion is murder, then you obviously want to do everything you can to make deliveries more accessible, not more cost-prohibitive. **
How many people actually write a check for $38,000.00 on the way out of the hospital with their newborn? I would imagine it’s statistically zero. The vast majority of people of some sort of insurance, either private or public, that covers nearly all of that tab.
Before Obamacare California had one of the highest rates of uninsured people in the country. I believe Medicaid covered financially qualified women but that would only cover the poor. Women without insurance would have to go to the emergency room but would still be billed and at one time women without insurance had trouble finding prenatal care.
By the way, the state of California has MediCal/Medicaid cover abortions for any reason. Now where is that smilie foaming at the mouth?
I agree it would be nice if it were cheaper. Maybe you should be talking with doctors about this, and ask them to take a paycut. The underlying assumption seems to be that living should be cheaper than dying, or that everyone else should pay for it. Like someone else said though, a bullet is cheaper than the surgery to repair the bullet wound. But, I certainly sympathize with the feeling. I wouldn’t object if hospitals figured out a way to lower prices without sacrificing epidurals, quality of care, or jacking up prices for everyone else. For one, I don’t want to put into a pot for others sterilizations or contraception, but I do because insurance determined that’s cheaper than childbirth. There are many questionable things when it comes to insurance.
Edit: oops, I quoted the wrong person. Sorry.
We don’t. Problem is we can’t get pro-abortion liberals to even talk about the root causes of increased cost.
They just want to throw more of other people’s money at the problem as seems to be their solution to everything.
In addition to high cost of living, The daily lifestyle of many of us is just not very child friendly. A two income household where both commute over 1 hour each way (1.5-2 hours isn’t uncommon) makes adding children logistically difficult.
Commuting logistics is one of the biggest factors in our current consideration of homeschool. The nearest Catholic classical school is at least forty-five minutes away, and the fastest corridor is the interstate. No thanks. An average three hour daily commute, assuming no traffic due to accidents and no snow, just isn’t friendly either to budget or a growing family. Once you factor in errands, forget it. I know some people do it, but the thought of that commute combined with morning sickness and exhaustion just isn’t a winner. There’d be no hope of sports or anything.
Now, there are two Catholic schools near us, but they aren’t classical. So it’s true we’re in this conundrum because I’m being picky, but I’ve been through conventional Catholic school, and I’m not convinced it’s “salty” enough. But that’s a different discussion.
Wrt abortion rates
I wonder how many are from tourist?
Supposedly there was an issue the legislature tried to address around tourist from certain regions coming here for sex selective abortions.
Increased use of birth control as well.