At the end of 2007, the United States entered what became known as the Great Recession. The period was marked by a crashing housing market and unemployment reaching its highest rate in decades by 2009. During this time, traditional expectations around starting families began to shift.
A recent analysis from the University of New Hampshire has found that despite there being 4 million more women of prime child-bearing age in 2024 compared to 2006, nearly 7 million fewer women had given birth during that period. Kenneth Johnson, a demographer and professor at the Carsey School of Public Policy, wrote in a Sept. 3 report that “in 2024, there were 10 percent more women aged 20 to 39 than in 2006, but the share who had never had a child was up by 45 percent.”
Johnson noted that if fertility patterns from before the Great Recession had continued, experts would have expected an additional 5.7 million women to have children—resulting in roughly 11.8 million more births over those years than actually occurred.
The analysis shows that trends predicted another 4.4 million women would have had two children and another 1.3 million would have had one child during this period. Instead, many chose different paths.
The proportion of women aged 20 to 39 who remain childless has risen substantially since before the recession. Johnson said some of these women may still choose to have children later in life, but “the substantial rise in the proportion of childless women suggests that some will forego children” entirely.
“Yet, 17 years after this turbulence began with the onset of the Great Recession, fertility rates remain near record lows, and the number of childless women continues to rise,” Johnson stated.
While fertility rates for women in their thirties declined only slightly and increased somewhat among those ages 35 to 49, these gains were not enough to offset declining birth rates among younger cohorts.
“In addition to the Great Recession and Covid, changing social, demographic, economic and cultural factors also influenced attitudes about fertility, marriage and children,” Johnson wrote. He cited greater educational and employment opportunities for women; rising housing costs; higher expenses associated with raising children; limited access to childcare and family leave; as well as shifts in cohabitation and immigration patterns as contributing factors.
Johnson pointed out that lower fertility rates correspond with lower marriage rates because “fertility rates in women who have never been married were lower than those who are married or have been in the past.” However, he added: “the number of married women who have not had a child is also higher than expected given historical trends.”
This trend is contributing directly to concerns about a so-called “demographic cliff,” where smaller generations follow larger ones due largely to falling birthrates. As reported by NPR (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/13/1199137911/the-missing-generation-college-enrollment-demographic-cliff), colleges are now beginning to feel these effects as students born around or just after the start of the recession begin reaching college age.
“The critical question is what kind of impact this will have on society,” Johnson said in a Sept.16 news release from UNH. “While it’s possible women who are currently delaying having children may still have them, the substantial rise in the proportion of childless women contributes to something called the ‘demographic cliff’ where the decision to not have children could have significant implications for health care, schools, child-related businesses and eventually for the labor force.”
