Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Republican Vice-Presidential candidate J.D. Vance has caught a lot of flak for his remark about childless cat ladies. He seems to have touched a nerve.

The issue is not that they have cats, it is that a growing proportion of women have chosen not to have families. By extension, an increasing number of men agree with their wives. Why is that?

However, Vance has started a worthwhile conversation about the plummeting birth rate and the fact that so many women choose not to have children and prefer to pour their affection into pets. So, we decided to touch this nerve directly and air some important differences in our politics.

Understand, we completely agree that women and men have the right to make their own choices on these matters. We only wish that those who wish to be childless not be so hostile to those who do wish to have families.

And, in a collective sense, we need to appreciate that those who choose to have children have made a more important societal contribution than those who choose not to have children.

At the risk of offending some Hollywood starlets, Vance pointed out the obvious truth, that to have a civilization that continues, one that can care for its elderly and defend itself, a society needs children. It is children who grow up to be scientists, steel workers, soldiers, taxpayers, and diplomats.

To have an impact on the world, you first have to show up. Amazingly, such an obvious truth is controversial in some quarters.

Most industrialized countries are experiencing plummeting birth rates as well, although until recently, the US was doing better than most. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

You need about 2.1 children per family for population stability. Today, many Western countries are in the range of 1.2 to 1.6. At 1.6, the population will fall by half in just 40 years. The US is currently at 1.66.

The question is why? It most likely is a mixture of economic policies, social policies, and spiritual positioning that are largely being undermined by the Left and its political arm, the Democrat Party.

As the states of this union often act as laboratories for social policy and attitudes, let us see which five states have the lowest birth rates and those that have the highest.

Lowest Birth Rates

1. Vermont: 44.9 live births per 1,000 people
2. Rhode Island: 48.3 live births per 1,000 people
3. Oregon: 48.9 live births per 1,000 people
4. Massachusetts: 49.0 live births per 1,000 people
5. New Hampshire: 49.9 live births per 1,000 people

Highest Birth Rates

1. South Dakota: 68.6 live births per 1,000 people
2. North Dakota: 66.7 live births per 1,000 people
3. Alaska: 64.9 live births per 1,000 people
4. Nebraska: 64.4 live births per 1,000 people
5. Utah: 63.6 live births per 1,000 people

Do you see any patterns in the data? Isn’t Bernie Sanders from Vermont?

It is often said that couples are not having children because of the cost of raising a family. However, looking at the list of states, it would be hard to make that argument. For example, Alaska is very expensive as a place to live. Are costs that much lower in Utah than in Vermont?

And what makes a state “expensive”? Would high taxes and heavy regulations play a role? How about high food prices, high gasoline prices, and high electricity bills? What political party embraces policies that force all of these costs higher? It seems rather obvious that there are political differences among these states, with the low birth rate states in Democrat-run states and the higher birth rate in Republican states.

Thus, if you believe economics impedes having children, then policies of free competition, low taxes, low regulation, and currency stability should help families. We should want job growth and higher productivity to support higher wages and lower housing costs.

Democrat policies fail on all those fronts. Large sections of the environmental movement now want dis-growth.

But while economics plays a role, is it the major factor?

If economics makes the primary difference, here is a thought challenge:  We take a similar group of people in an expensive state (Jews in New Jersey) and look at the birth differentials.  This is the same ethnic/religious group, the same gene pool,  in the same high-cost urban environment, and look at the difference in birth rates between religious Jews and secularized Jews.  We choose them because of their similarities, not differences, to eliminate as best we can independent variables.

The birth rates among Jewish communities in New Jersey show significant differences between Reform and Orthodox Jews.

1. Orthodox Jews: The average Orthodox Jewish household tends to have significantly higher fertility rates. Orthodox Jewish families in New Jersey, particularly in areas like Lakewood, have an average of around 4.1 children per family​ (Jewish Exponent)​​ (Pew Research Center)​.
2. Reform Jews: In contrast, Reform Jewish households have much lower fertility rates, averaging around 0.5 children per household​ (Pew Research Center)​​ (Pew Research Center)​.

As mentioned before, it takes 2.1 children per household to maintain population stability. At 0.5, Reform Jews will cease to exist fairly soon.

A group of people will cease to exist, largely by their own actions. This is a rather sobering development.

As mentioned before, if you expect to influence the world, you first have to show up.

Because our example removes many independent variables, the difference suggests that there is an important spiritual/religious element to having children that is far more critical than economics.

On the contrary, Reform Jews tend to have higher incomes compared to their Orthodox counterparts yet have far fewer children. According to a Pew Research Center survey, Orthodox Jews, particularly those in the Haredi community, have lower levels of formal secular education, which correlates with lower household incomes. Only 17% of Orthodox Jews have postgraduate degrees, compared to 30% of both Conservative and Reform Jews​ (Pew Research Center)​​ (Pew Research Center)​.

This data suggests that while economics plays a role, it is a choice couples make to have children, despite the costs. Further, more religious mothers tend to stay home and care for children, depriving the household money of the earnings of a working mother, although childcare costs are eliminated.

Women who leave the workforce for decades to have children tend to earn less than men and also gravitate towards careers with greater flexibility in hours and ease of re-entry into the workforce. A teacher can leave for a decade, and re-enter teaching. It is difficult for an accountant or doctor to leave the profession for a decade, and still be up to date with all the changes occurring in the profession.  The supply of teachers will tend to be larger than the supply of doctors because of this relative ease in entering, leaving, and re-entering the profession.

Because women often leave the workforce for an extended period for children, society needs to recognize, logically, that women would earn less than men. Being a mom is an economic trade-off and a valuable one that may not be expressed in monetary terms.

Not surprisingly, the two groups within the same community divide along party lines.

Reform Jews

• Tend to be Democrats: Reform Jews are generally more liberal and are more likely to align with the Democratic Party. This political tendency is influenced by their progressive views on social issues, such as LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and social justice.
• Political Leaning: According to the Pew Research Center, a significant majority of Reform Jews identify as Democrats or lean towards the Democratic Party. The survey shows that about 80% of Reform Jews identify as Democrats or lean Democratic​ (Pew Research Center)​​ (URJ)​.

Orthodox Jews

• Tend to be Republicans: Orthodox Jews, especially those in the Haredi community, are more likely to identify with the Republican Party. Their political orientation is shaped by Biblical values, particularly on issues like religious freedom, education, and family values.
• Political Leaning: The same Pew Research Center survey indicates that a majority of Orthodox Jews, about 57%, identify as Republicans or lean towards the Republican Party​ (Pew Research Center)​​ (URJ).

These political affiliations reflect broader differences in social and cultural values between the two groups. While ethnically the same group, living in the same environment, attitudes toward life are quite different.

In short, it would appear liberal Jews are so interested in Tikkun (going forth to reform the world) that they have forgotten to reproduce.

Be sure to read part II of this article.