U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption AGF/UIG via Getty Images AGF/UIG via Getty Images 
 
 Updated at 8:48 p.m. ET 
 
 The birthrate fell for nearly every group of women of reproductive age in the U.S. in 2017, reflecting a sharp drop that saw the fewest newborns since 1987, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
 
 There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017 — "down 2 percent from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years," the CDC said. 
 
 The general fertility rate sank to a record low of 60.2 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — a 3 percent drop from 2016, the CDC said in its tally of provisional data for the year. 
 
 The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate – the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers. 
 
 "The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971," according to the report from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. 
 
 The CDC calculates a "total fertility rate" by estimating how many babies a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would likely have over their lifetime. That measure now stands at 1,764.5 births per 1,000 women — a 3 percent drop from 2016. The replacement rate is 2,100 births per 1,000 women. 
 
 "The decline in the rate from 2016 to 2017 was the largest single-year decline since 2010," the CDC said. 
 
 The 2017 numbers also represent a 10-year fall from 2007, when the U.S. finally broke its post-World War baby boom record, with more than 4.3 million births. 
 
 Historically, the number of babies born in the U.S. has gradually risen since a sharp decline in the early 1970s. But that growth has been inconsistent, and over the same time frame, the birthrate has shown a general decline. The numbers are often subject to spikes and sudden dips, driven in large part by the country's economy, generational size and other factors. 
 
 The numbers seem to correspond with what the Census Bureau and others have been predicting for years: America's population growth will increasingly depend on immigrants, after decades in which the U.S. enjoyed a relatively high fertility rate when compared with that of other developed countries. 
 
 As The Associated Press reports, the U.S. birthrate is "still above countries such as Spain, Greece, Japan and Italy, but the gap appears to be closing." 
 
 Broken out by age, the 2017 birthrate fell for teenagers by 7 percent, to 18.8 births per 1,000, a record low. That figure is for women from 15 to 19 years old. For that same group, the birthrate has fallen by 55 percent since 2007 and by 70 percent since the most recent peak in 1991, the CDC said. 
 
 Women in their 40s were the only group to see a higher birthrate last year. Between the ages of 40 and 44, there were 11.6 births per 1,000 women, up 2 percent from 2016, according to the CDC's provisional data. 
 
 Birthrates fell by 4 percent both for women from 20 to 24 years old and for women of ages 25 to 29. 
 
 For women in their 30s — a group that had recently seen years of rising birthrates — the rate fell slightly in 2017. The drop included a 2 percent fall among women in their early 30s, a group that still maintained the highest birthrate of any age group, at 100.3 births per 1,000 women. 
 
 For the third year in a row, both the preterm birthrate and the low birth weight rate rose. The CDC said that the 9.93 percent rise in preterm births was due to late preterm births and that the early preterm rate had not changed from 2016's 2.75 percent. 
 
 Low birth weight — defined as newborns that weigh less than 5 pounds, 8 ounces — rose slightly above the highest level previously recorded, with 2017's 8.27 percent topping 2006's 8.26 percent. 
 
 The overall cesarean delivery rate nudged upward in 2017, rising to 32 percent from 31.9 percent – still below the all-time high of 32.9 percent in 2009. 
 
 The CDC also tallied births by race and cultural data (but it doesn't yet have the data to compare those figures to the overall populations). 
 
 Here's how some of the 2017 numbers were reported: ||||| When unemployment spikes during severe economic downturns, birth rates usually drop. That’s been true for the past decade, thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath. But there’s a stark difference this time around: The economy is improving, but birth rates aren’t. 
 
 Newly-released federal estimates find that the fertility rate fell further last year to 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, a historic low. In fact, 4 million fewer babies were born between 2008 and 2016 than would have been born had the rate continued at pre-recession levels, according to University of New Hampshire demographer Kenneth Johnson. 
 
 Over the long term, the baby bust could carry profound consequences for public policy if fertility rates don’t rebound. Classrooms could see more empty seats. Smaller workforces would likely reduce tax revenues. And demands for social services could shift. 
 
 Multiple factors have contributed to these low fertility rates. The first is the recession. Research has linked recession-era spikes in unemployment to corresponding decreases in a state’s fertility rate. Arizona -- whose economy suffered immensely with the bursting of the housing bubble -- has incurred the largest fertility rate decline of any state, a drop of 22 percent since 2007. Fewer births could compound matters in parts of the Northeast and Rust Belt where economies are struggling and populations have been declining for years. In contrast, North Dakota benefited from an oil boom and was the only state with a 2015 fertility rate above pre-recession levels. 
 
 Second, it’s well established that younger workers were hit particularly hard during the recession. Many of those who found jobs have been burdened with low wages or weighty student loan debts that make supporting children difficult. What’s more, many young adults who are more financially secure have chosen to delay marriage. 
 
 Another factor is immigration. Recent immigrants have among the highest fertility rates. If it were not for immigrant women, total annual U.S. births -- meaning the actual overall number of births, not the rate per capita -- would now be below levels reached in the late 1980s. But immigration gains from Mexico have halted, and states that have seen large numbers of immigrants in the past are now experiencing particularly sharp fertility declines. 
 
 The effects of reduced fertility won’t be clear for decades. But it’s possible to make a few educated guesses about them. 
 
 For starters, fewer workers in future years would likely cause tax bases to shrink. That poses serious problems, especially given the country’s aging demographics and the large segment of baby boomers already retiring. Consider Medicare: There were 3.1 taxpaying workers per Medicare recipient in 2015, a number projected to drop to 2.3 by 2030, according to the Medicare Board of Trustees. 
 
 Some speculate that a smaller workforce with less competition could benefit workers who wouldn’t otherwise secure better-paying jobs. But Chris Christopher, of the financial information firm IHS Markit, warns that such a scenario would be problematic. “It may be good for some individuals, but it would not be a good situation for the economy as a whole,” he says. 
 
 Just how much today’s low fertility rates actually reshape the future workforce will also depend on other factors. Economists believe immigrants could potentially offset the fewer births, and more women participating in the workforce would also help fill labor shortages. 
 
 Additionally, fewer babies would likely yield a more mobile workforce, since families with kids tend to buy homes and stay in place. Average household sizes have slowly shrunk over several decades, and a continuation would increase demand for housing units with fewer bedrooms. 
 
 One of the first effects of the fertility decline will be a drop in elementary school enrollment. The Maryland Department of Planning projects the state’s public elementary school population will decline each year until 2021, based on the lower number of births recorded in the past few years. Jurisdictions that aren’t adding residents via migration will need to rethink plans to build new or larger schools. 
 
 But lower birth rates do bring some good news. Falling rates of unintended pregnancy and far fewer births to teenage women are an important component of the declines. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the teen birth rate has dropped 46 percent between 2007 and 2015. Rates have also dipped for women in their 20s, although not nearly as sharply. Meanwhile, birth rates for women in their 30s and early 40s have continued to climb, and are now at their highest levels since the 1960s. 
 
 Some population scholars say these trends hold a lot of promise. “Discouraging early childbearing and unintended childbearing has positive implications from everything to education to the workforce and parenting,” says Kristin Moore of Child Trends, a think tank studying children and families. Women in their late 20s and 30s are more economically stable than those in their teenage years, which should lessen the demand for social services. They’ll also likely maintain better health insurance, Moore says. 
 
 At this point, the biggest unknown is how many women are merely delaying childbirth and how many are forgoing it altogether. It’s reasonable to expect many who married in their late 20s and early 30s to have kids over the next few years, as recent gains in fertility for those in their 30s show. Although younger Americans have delayed marriage longer than prior generations, surveys suggest they’re still intent on having children. A Gallup poll found that views on the ideal number of children have changed little since the late 1970s. 
 
 Homeownership for young adults is also slowly rebounding, another sign that more young couples could be preparing to raise families. But the gains in births for older women haven’t been nearly enough to offset the declines among younger age brackets. 
 
 Only time will tell whether low fertility -- and all the policy implications that accompany it -- represents a temporary phenomenon or a more permanent feature of American society. 
 
 NOTE: This story has been updated to reflect new fertility rate data released June 30. 
 
 Fertility Rate Data
– Although you wouldn't know it from the constant barrage of pregnant celebrity pics on social media, the fertility rate in the US—the number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44—fell to 60 last year, its lowest level since the government started tracking the figure in 1909, reports NPR. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the birth rate is down in nearly every age group tracked. The 3,853,472 births in the US last year represent a 3% drop from 2016, the largest single-year decline since 2010 and the fewest babies born in one year since 1978. A country’s fertility rate is an important measure of its sustainability, reports the New York Times. Too many births put a strain on education and housing. Too few births, and over time the labor pool declines, which in turn tightens resources. In the US, the decline has not yet led to a drop in overall population, because it has been offset to some degree by immigrants. The decline is a bit surprising because in 2017 there were about 7% more women in their prime childbearing years of 20 to 39. One group that ran against the trend was older women. The birth rate among women age 40 to 44 was up 2% over the previous year. In fact, almost one in five births were to women 35 or older. Although it’s difficult to say for certain what's causing the decline, several factors may be at work, including economic uncertainty stemming from the economic downturn in 2007, reports LiveScience. In addition, women have been waiting longer to have children, and millennial women appear to be waiting even longer than previous generations as they build their careers. One happy finding: Births in the 15 to 19 age group were down 7%, down 55% since 2007, and down 70% from a high in 1991, a trend one statistician called "phenomenal."