Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Medicine Science

Stanford Study Finds New Dads In US Are Older Than Ever (mercurynews.com) 191

Posted by BeauHD from the daddy-day-care dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Mercury News: American fathers keep getting older, raising the prospect of increased birth defects but also greater economic and emotional security for U.S. families, according to new research from Stanford University's School of Medicine. The average age of the fathers of newborns in the United States has climbed by 3.5 years over the past four decades, growing from 27.4 years in 1972 to 30.9 years in 2015, said the study -- the nation's most detailed analysis ever of paternal age. The number of newborns whose fathers were over age 40 has more than doubled over the past four decades. Those births now make up nearly 9 percent of births in the U.S., Dr. Michael Eisenberg and Yash Khandwala reported in the journal Human Reproduction. The share of fathers who were over age 50 rose from 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent. Asian-American fathers -- men of Japanese and Vietnamese descent, in particular -- are the oldest, becoming fathers at the average age of 36 years, the study said. Black and Hispanic men are the youngest fathers -- age 30.4 and 30, respectively. White men, on average, have children at age 31. Paternal age rose with educational attainment. The typical newborn's father with a college degree is 33.3 years old -- compared with 29.8 years for high school graduates.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stanford Study Finds New Dads In US Are Older Than Ever More

Stanford Study Finds New Dads In US Are Older Than Ever

Comments Filter:

  • There's just so much more to accomplish today. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Part of the problem is that there's just so much more that people want to accomplish today. It isn't like in the 1950s, where a man would be content going to his 9-to-5 job, coming home to a prepared dinner, smoking a cigar, going to sleep, and doing the same thing again every other work day. Saturdays were used for doing household chores and playing sports with his children, while Sundays were used for going to church and having a Sunday dinner with family.

    It's totally different today. Men, women, and even

    • Today I learned
      People still use rust

    • Re:There's just so much more to accomplish today. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday August 31, 2017 @10:56PM (#55120589)

      The stories I've heard from my in-laws lend evidence that men were not terribly involved in the lives of the young children or even at-times the family. My FIL didn't get married until his forties, and most of his friends that did marry young still went out drinking with the guys, even as their wives became pregnant and raised children.

      If expectations now are shifting more toward participation with the family then it would follow that men might be more inclined themselves to hold-off having kids until they're ready. Also, the use of birth control being more acceptable means that people generally have more options to entertain themselves without having kids.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This. Men are slowly being liberated, like women were in the 60s, from the old gender roles and can now be much more involved with their children with little social stigma. Unfortunately there is still a lot of pressure to take less paternity leave than their partner, and the change is taking much longer than it did for women, but it's happening.

        Of course some people see this as a bad thing. They seem to want to go back to the old 1950s model of children being the mother's sole responsibility, except for th

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That is a great picture you paint. I have only one worry about this bright future - fathers will not be excused from any other male responsibility because they participate more in family.

          So men will take yet another load on their shoulders while keep on being overly responsible and overly punished for everything. While the women will take responsibility only when they want for what they want for as long as they want, cause everything else (things that you know, MUST be done) is male oppression. And they'd s

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        The stories I've heard from my in-laws lend evidence that men were not terribly involved in the lives of the young children or even at-times the family. My FIL didn't get married until his forties, and most of his friends that did marry young still went out drinking with the guys, even as their wives became pregnant and raised children.

        If expectations now are shifting more toward participation with the family then it would follow that men might be more inclined themselves to hold-off having kids until they're ready. Also, the use of birth control being more acceptable means that people generally have more options to entertain themselves without having kids.

        Actual studies have show than male parents have always played a large role in raising children, right back to the prehistoric age. The idea that women raised children exclusively is a myth that has developed in very recent times.

        It may also shock those who believe in old fashioned gender myths that women served aboard ships in Nelson's Navy.

        I think the problem is that people now are working longer hours to have the same quality of life as they had in the 1950's. The fact that it takes years to save f

  • actually older (Score:5, Funny)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday August 31, 2017 @10:57PM (#55120593)

    Stanford Study Finds New Dads In US Are Older Than Ever

    After so many nights without adequate sleep we only feel that way...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      You look it too...

      I jest, but there's a grain of truth there too. I've noticed that of my friends, those who have had children do actually look older than those without (women especially - please don't shoot the messenger for what's essentially an anecdotal observation). I swear the little buggers literally age you! At least they'll be there to look after you in your early onset infirmity though. ;-)

      That being said, we all look older, and the sample set of "my long term friends" is probably far too small to

      • You might look older but you get to live longer [huffingtonpost.ca].

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Whibla ( 210729 )

          I was going to say something along these lines in my original post, but I couldn't be bothered to look up any links to support such an assertion, so thank you.

          They did sort of back up my somewhat flippant up-side though:

          "...they theorised that parents may benefit from social and financial support from their children in older age, which childless people lose out on."

          I did find the fact that the differences in life expectancy diminished as age increased somewhat interesting I must admit, but, like my personal

  • As the child of people who couldn't afford kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Thursday August 31, 2017 @11:01PM (#55120605) Homepage Journal

    As the child of people who couldn't afford kids: people shouldn't have kids until they can afford them.

    Unfortunately, this means that most people just shouldn't ever have kids, because they will never afford them, because everyone is perpetually poor and only getting poorer.

    And yes, that means I shouldn't have been born. And no, I'm probably never going to have kids.

    The good news is, if everyone actually followed this advice (not that they will), whatever tiny number of kids were actually born in the future would live in a better world for it. If the underclasses upon whose backs the wealthy survive stop perpetuating themselves (ourselves, because I'm down here too), eventually the wealthy will have to support themselves, and the tiny future population will be forced to be more egalitarian.

    It worked with the black plague.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dillee1 ( 741792 )
      What you are describing have been happening in Japan for 1~2 decades now. Local youngsters are refraining from breeding for reason exactly as you mentioned. Population in Japan in decreasing at 300k/yr [google.com.hk].

    • Let them eat cake (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You know, if we lived in a subsistence society, where having a kid meant that everyone had to starve a little more I would agree with you, but we don't. We don't even live in a society where we are producing enough kids to sustain current populations. Instead, we live in a society where increasingly larger portions of economic output are hoovered up by a small bunch of people who essentially piss it away on frivolity. Think how many middle class kids could have been raised if Larry Ellison didn't have a fet

      • Yes, that was kind of the point of my post. Most people are in a position where it would be imprudent of them to have kids, and that is terrible, just how it's terrible where most people are in a position where it's imprudent to get preventative medical care because the cost will render them homeless. People shouldn't, for their own sake and others', do things they can't afford; but people should be able to afford more, because we shouldn't all be so poor.

    • It worked with the black plague.

      The black plague was essentially a cull.

      That's hardly even in the same league as perpetuating the idea of not having kids unless you can afford them (which would essentially mean 1% of society should have kids).

    • Why do you think they're [the filthy rich] trying to automate *EVERYTHING* ?

    • There should be a mod which is both -1 and +1 titled "depressing, but true".

    • Re:As the child of people who couldn't afford kids (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:16AM (#55121519) Homepage Journal

      whatever tiny number of kids were actually born in the future would live in a better world for it.

      Probably not... Population decline is a serious problem for society. It causes all sorts of economic and social issues. Workers end up supporting too many retired/non-working people, there is a shortage of workers to do all the jobs that need doing (especially healthcare) and so on.

      The world fertility rate is already nearing 2.1, i.e. zero growth/decline except for people living longer or catastrophic events like war. The total population will likely level off around 10-12bn by 2100. Modern farming methods can provide more than enough food for that already, and clean energy sources can provide more than enough power for us all to live well. We still need to deal with pollution and waste, but those are solvable problems and the solutions don't involve huge declines in living standards.

      Population decline means either massive declines in quality of life or massive immigration. People don't seem to be very keen on either of those.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      Tell that to the rest of the world! We're adding 80 million people every year to this planet. Almost every one of them is born - colored and dirt poor. I don't mean American poor, those are rich people in other parts of the world. I mean people that can't even get clean water to drink. They need to stop.

  • DUH ... Kids are bloody expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Thursday August 31, 2017 @11:28PM (#55120661)

    And we're surprised by these findings???

    Kids are bloody expensive. Having kids ties you down (time/space/money-wise).

    I suspect this trend will continue for another few decades.

    • Given that fertility medicine is also quite expensive; and somewhat tepidly effective(and the various child medical issues that become more of a risk with parental age are wildly expensive), I'm not sure how many decades of room this trend has to continue... The economic pressures sure don't seem to be going away; but attempts to bend the biological constraints have only been somewhat effective.
    • Well ya, when most kids now adays live in moms basement till they're 30, that probably explains how they finally move out. "Aw shit she's knocked up". Her "let's move in together for cheap rent"

    • Re:DUH ... Kids are bloody expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tezbobobo ( 879983 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:48AM (#55120997) Homepage Journal

      I think you're wrong. People in poverty have always had kids. Financial insecurity doesn't preclude kids. We are seeing this trend in mostly Western countries where people are told that they should wait until they are financially secure before having kids. During that time the wife's fertility drops substantially and they end up have a couple of kids late. This will continue as long as there is the message, "wait until you're financially secure until you have kids." Unfortunately there are real problems with having kids late. Further, it doesn't need to stop - immigration (which I have no problem with) will take the place. But there are consequences to that - demographic changes and a change in cultural values.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I think you're wrong. People in poverty have always had kids. Financial insecurity doesn't preclude kids. We are seeing this trend in mostly Western countries where people are told that they should wait until they are financially secure before having kids. During that time the wife's fertility drops substantially and they end up have a couple of kids late. This will continue as long as there is the message, "wait until you're financially secure until you have kids." Unfortunately there are real problems wit

        • Also education. My great great uncle had like 6 kids and was in the doctor for a checkup and the doctor asked him "how is the family?" "Oh... well you know, wife's pregnant again." "Great Uncle Bob, you're not Catholic, why so many kids?" "What do you mean?" My great uncle was shocked to discover that there were ways to have less children.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Unfortunately conservative politics make this a difficult one to solve.

        "Having children is a lifestyle choice! Why should I subsidise them?"
        "There are too many immigrants taking the jobs and housing"
        "I've worked hard all my life, I'm entitled to a good pension"

        The only solution is to accept that these are all social problems with social solutions, i.e. socialism.

      • Re: DUH ... Kids are bloody expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:47AM (#55121607) Journal
        I think your argument should take opportunity cost into account: it is true that the poor often have kids(generally higher fertility rates than the middle class; not sure about the wealthy, though they simply aren't numerous enough to be a terribly important population-level supply of children); but consider the difference in opportunity costs.

        If you are middle class, or at least on the right side of poor, the message(and it isn't entirely a lie, though the student debt will hurt; and some majors aren't worth much) is "stay in school, work hard, get into a decent college, get a real job, then you'll have a chance at economic stability, living somewhere safe and with decent schools, etc. If you don't do that; people with a high school diploma or less are basically screwed, you'll be doomed, and so on." Sometimes exaggerated; but strongly emphasized and by no means entirely false. In the face of those incentives, unless you are particularly dumb, impulsive, or powerless enough that it isn't a choice, deferring children is pretty sensible behavior(both for men and women; though the fact that pregnancy and child rearing are time consuming as well as expensive likely means that women are even more likely to have to halt school or work because they just don't have time for both; while child support will be a real punch in the wallet; but not directly time consuming; and a situation where they want you to be working and earning as much as possible).

        Among the poor, by contrast, the message is vastly less optimistic about the rewards of deferring children(one can blame 'culture'; bad role models, etc; and that may have a role; but it is hard to deny that people educated in really lousy school districts and with limited means to pay for college(scholarships and aid tend to cover tuition and room and board; but incidentals and foregone wages because of the time you aren't working still hit harder) simply have less reason to expect that their situation will improve if they defer children: your earning potential doesn't just magically increase with age; you need to obtain the appropriate degree, experience, promotion, etc.

        Obviously, children are themselves expensive, so having them tends to make you poorer; but approximately a zillion years of evolution have left people, on the whole, liking children and the idea of reproducing, so just trying "tell them not to breed" doesn't work all that well. The poor face an overall grimmer situation; but also have little to gain by deferring children if they do want them. The middle class is offered much more convincing assurances that having children later might actually leave them better off.
      • because it was an investment. Your kids worked for you. As soon as they could too. Child labor has been illegal except in some very specific scenarios for decades. Also you don't 'own' your wife and child like you did/do back when the vast majority lived in abject poverty. They're no longer a possession to be obtained for monetary gain. They're purely an emotional thing. You have kids because you want to. And well (and this is something more taboo to say than every n-word variation you can think of) most me

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rolgar ( 556636 )

      Rediculous. I have six and only just jumped to 60k a year in salary. Without any government money other than my child tax credits (I net about (k-1)*1000 in tax return/year with none withheld). The way we budget, the kids' food costs a bit more than the tax refund. I do hear that this may change as they get older, but we have difficulty getting most of them to eat much due to my wife's insistence on feeding them healthy food.

  • Increased birth defects? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, you wouldn't fucking DARE point out the increased birth defect rates in older women having children, even though the rate of things increases fucking DRAMATICALLY by 35. But we jizz all over ourselves in the media to celebrate some 58 year old women squirting one out, anyway.

    JUST down syndrome: (age/rate)

    20 1:2000

    30 1:900

    35 1:350

    40 1:100

    45 1:30 (believe this was the age Sarah Palin had her downs syndrome child that she was praised for being so brave and strong to care for, but not taken to task for bi

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      There's a test and abortion for it, so why should it matter ? (*) Yes, there are other types of rarer birth defects that increase with age. But there's also one thing that gets better with having kids at a later age: overall life expectancy. It selects for people who can live safely older, and selects against things like risky behaviors in teens, early genetic diseases, etc... Want to live longer ? Have kids later. Of course it might take a few thousand generations...

      (*) speaking as an old dad.

    • Re:Increased birth defects? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @03:03AM (#55121167)
      What do you mean "wouldn't dare"? Are you living under a fucking rock? Women have been told since prehistory to have children young. The birth defects from older women are well known. Only now we're seeing a slight correction the other way warning that it actually does effect men too. For a while, the folk wisdom was that only the woman's age mattered and not the men. Nice try in attempting to play the injured party here.

      • Their numbers seem a bit off, as well.

      • forgotten wisdom, women are now strongly discouraged from getting married before middle age
      • to the contrary though. e.g. that it's fine having children in your 40s (if you discount the fact that you'll be dead before you see grandchildren). The reason women had to have kids young was if they didn't they couldn't survive the trauma of child birth. There's writings from Voltaire's mistress back in the day when she found out she was pregnant and was 'putting her papers' in order because she didn't expect to live. She didn't.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why bring up statistics about 49 year old women when the article is about 30 year old men?

      Informative my ass.

      • Us, men, we still need women to reproduce, and them women tend to be close to our age. We can revisit your argument once medical progress made women no longer a requirement.

  • Yes (Score:2)

    by TheSync ( 5291 )

    Yes, and I am getting aged faster and faster by my kids!

  • 3.5 years older after 40 years. OMG - EVERYONE PANIC. At that rate, new dad's will be 180 years old by the end of the century (ok, I didn't do the maths so that number might be off a little).

  • young people can't afford kids and the Catholic/Puritan stigma of birth control is more or less gone.

  • Different view (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In my country, not having children is proclaimed, by a vocal minority, as being selfish: The hypocrisy being that child-rearing requires a lot of resources, so those popping-out babies are actually, the selfish ones.

    The selfishness of Asian children (since several countries have endorsed a one-child policy for a few decades), was examined in a recent study and discovered to be a minor issue; with the children being emotionally normal plus high achievers.

    While governments struggle with combining careers and

  • Stanford Study Finds New Dads In US Are Older Than Ever

    Yep, they're getting older every second.

  • Had only child at age 41 here. And let me tell you, a 7-year-old is a handful, especially at my age.

    • Similar here -- had an only child in my late thirties and I can see how much more energy I would have had for kids when I was younger. Getting less sleep is also a much bigger deal when you are older.

      That said, trying to keep up also made me more health conscious (e.g. eating more fruits and vegetables, getting enough vitamin D3, iodine, and B vitamins, etc. see for example Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, Dr. Andrew Weil, "The Pleasure Trap" book, etc. ).

      My dad had me when he was in his late forties -- so

  • Not that I think the trend would be any different, but I'd like to see the average (and median) age of first time fathers. And mothers, for that matter.
  • And become the oldest Old Daddy on Earth.
  • It's because women would rather work, than stay at home and be a mom & a housewife.

  • That is all the explanation necessary.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close