Althouse: "The New York Times... says a boom of older mothers is coming to reverse low fertility, but the math is against them."

April 20, 2026

"The New York Times... says a boom of older mothers is coming to reverse low fertility, but the math is against them."

Explains Maibritt Henkel, at The Argument, with some devastating graphs.

34 comments:

boatbuilder said...: It's not the math that's the problem, it's the biology.

Although the stupid graph illustrating changes in RATES of birth among various age cohorts, rather than actual numbers of births among those age cohorts, is precisely the sort of dishonest crap that the NYT engages in on a constant basis.

Why would anyone trust or believe anything that the NYT says?; 4/20/26, 7:49 AM
boatbuilder said...: Although yesterday I attended a 1-year birthday party for my absolutely wonderful and perfect grandson, whose mom is 34 Also in attendance were two other babies around his age, and their also 30-something moms (and dads). More babies!; 4/20/26, 7:55 AM
Roger Sweeny said...: I am getting way too cynical. My first thought was, "The NYT is trying to assure it's audience--especially its female audience--that they really can have it all." "You won't age out if fertility. When the time comes, you'll have someone who wants to have kids with you."; 4/20/26, 8:02 AM
Fen said...: "the math is against them."

Sweeeet! [ puts chip on Math Is Misogynist ] All I need now-

"BINGO!"

Damnit Mary. Again? Really? That makes what.. four?; 4/20/26, 8:04 AM
Ann Althouse said...: As boatbuilder points out, the NYT treated percentages of births as if they were the numbers of births. This made a HUGE error. That's what this post is about, not the intuition we might have about psychology and how women tend to arrange their lives.; 4/20/26, 8:15 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Was it an error or deliberately deceptive political propaganda?; 4/20/26, 8:19 AM
chuck said...: The babies in the egg carton is cute.; 4/20/26, 8:21 AM
Enigma said...: 1. Left-leaning women have been fed that "Earth is overpopulated" and "it's a right to choose" abortion for generations. They've not been inclined to breed, and breeding happens on the right wing. The real great replacement in action.

2. Women over age 30 are less likely to ever marry; so they may have to pursue single motherhood or have no babies.

3. Women over age 30 have face increasing fertility issues, leading many to have 0% chance of giving birth by 40.

4. Per Sarah Palin's last child, the chances of Down's Syndrome and more rise as the human body ages.

We are experiencing a pullback in human population following the invention of modern medicine and agriculture. Humans bred wildly for 100 years, but are now rethinking and the dead end subcultures are dying off. Considering the pre-science population vs. death rates, that's no shocker.

Ebb and flow. Just like the tides and seasons. Got to study the clouds to predict the future.; 4/20/26, 8:22 AM
Joe Bar said...: This couples nicely with the discussion on the latest Triggernometry podcast with Andrew Wilson. Part of the debate was about obligations that men and women have to their country and humanity, or the lack thereof. Is there an obligation for women to have children, and perpetuate the human race?; 4/20/26, 8:25 AM
gilbar said...: ..the chances of Down's Syndrome and more rise as the human body ages..

i've wanted for some time, to see a graph showing the rates (or obsolute numbers) of autism vs mother (and father) age.
of course; 1st you'd have to decide whether or not to include autism fraud in your graphs.
See, i USED TO Think that the Huge increase in autism was related to the age of the father.. NOW, i still think that is A factor, but the rigor of government fact checking is probably the MAIN cause.

anyway, the graphs would be interesting.; 4/20/26, 8:30 AM
Dude1394 said...: You seldom go wrong by questioning the NYTimes. You usually go wrong questioning Elon.; 4/20/26, 8:37 AM
Howard said...: Math is hard; 4/20/26, 8:38 AM
Howard said...: This is why they don't want people to learn algebra so they can be easily conned by percentages; 4/20/26, 8:39 AM
Temujin said...: If everyone is to depend on middle aged progressive women to bail themselves out of the problem of running out of people to take care of them in another 20 years, well...everyone is screwed. Even those who do manage to have a child at age 45 will not be having 2 more into their 50s.
And unless we're at an average of 2.1 children per couple, I do believe they are not going to have any doormen at their Manhattan condo when they get older.
Thankfully, Elon Musk is on it. Hello Optimus!.; 4/20/26, 8:40 AM
Kai Akker said...: Where are the devastating graphs? Isn't this very old news?; 4/20/26, 8:44 AM
Enigma said...: @gilbar --

Autism and ADHD may conflate routine personality variations and the lack of physical activity with "true" medical problems.

Many parents want a DEI edge for their children, leading to massive increases in disability diagnoses. Many people want to climb a rung or two on the grievance ladder. More free stuff, easier lives. It's yet another consequence of pushing a blind ideology over cold but but real science.; 4/20/26, 8:47 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Low fertility, eh? That's a left wing problem not a right wing one.; 4/20/26, 8:54 AM
Fred Drinkwater said...: My actual experience with the age cohort likely to have written and edited (LOL) that article suggests that they simply did not understand the math.; 4/20/26, 9:00 AM
Saint Croix said...: The science on eggs disappearing is kind of shocking. 90% are gone by the age of 30. They're almost all gone by the age of 40.

All the kids are brought up to believe in birth control. Sex education is birth control education. Portraying reproduction as cool, showing people what an unborn baby looks like, and how miraculous it is, is not something our culture does.

We teach them to condom-fuck and promise them that you can have kids in the future. I'm sure there are a lot of people who quit birth control and then discover how hard it can be to have a baby when you want one.; 4/20/26, 9:05 AM
Kai Akker said...: ---- the NYT treated percentages of births as if they were the numbers of births. This made a HUGE error. That's what this post is about

Dog bites man?; 4/20/26, 9:06 AM
Kai Akker said...: In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent. --from Helen Andrews

So.... math is hard. Feelz is easy.; 4/20/26, 9:26 AM
Dude1394 said...: I would not put it past the democrat NYTimes to gaslight women into thinkiney thry can delay having babies until 40 and still have the same number.; 4/20/26, 9:56 AM
Jamie said...: I object to the "people on the right are using gender equality as a weapon against the left" framing; it's perfectly analogous to the "people on the right said Biden was too old to be president but Trump is now the same age" thing. Biden's AGE was never the issue; it was his cognitive decline. And "gender equality" is not the issue; it's the consistent and constant presentation of childlessness as the recipe for a happy, fulfilling life, and having children as a drain on a person's or a couple's physical, emotional, and financial well-being that has to be overcome or, at least, morosely accepted as the unfortunate cost of doing something that used to be "free."

Which of course is pure BS.; 4/20/26, 10:13 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: My daughter had two children--born when she was 42 and 44. I will tell you that it was a heck of a struggle for her and her husband. It was expensive. There were setbacks.. Fortunately both children are happy and healthy.

By contrast her mother and I simply needed to be in the same county for pregnancy to occur--but then we were in our late middle twenties at the time.; 4/20/26, 11:15 AM
JK Brown said...: Keep in mind, 2007 was the year that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) started its sustained decline from just below replacement rate where it hovered from 1973 (on average). And the births to mothers 15-19 declined by 72% from 1970-2021 (with a steep decline since 2007) and 49% for mothers 20-24. Mothers 30-34 do seem to have numerically made up for the fewer children born to mothers 20-24, but by nature, such women are less likely to have multiple children.

And does no one consider that babies grow up and it takes 20 years of parental support at least. (yes, legally 18 but we are using round numbers). A birth to a parent 35 will be a financial responsibility until they are 55. Get into their 40s and that kid support will be impinging on retirement hopes.

Soon all the stories will be about how old women with children are suffering as their employment prospects decline as everyone's does when they hit 50. No one will care about old fathers.; 4/20/26, 11:36 AM
NMObjectivist said...: I read elsewhere that conservative mothers are out producing liberal mothers with new babies and the country will be 80% conservative by 2100. So it's a self correcting problem.; 4/20/26, 11:38 AM
JAORE said...: Anyone who reads that NT crap and immediately doesn't say those numbers are 1) written with a HUGE and intentional bias to support their claims, or 2) idiots with not a trace of a "math bump". More likely 1&2 AND secure in the knowledge their audience were NOT STEM students.; 4/20/26, 11:56 AM
Enigma said...: The birthrate in Europe fell off a cliff after WW2. Everywhere from Russia to Italy. The USA tends to lag Europe by about 50 years, so we are right on schedule.

South Korea, which was a simple farming culture prior to WW2, became the first "digital native" country by the 1990s to early 2000s. They were living in Internet cafes and playing "Starcraft" back then. Since WW2 their birthrate fell sharply, and the age pyramid is shockingly distorted. Korean women refused to mate or breed or have babies.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2026/; 4/20/26, 12:08 PM
boatbuilder said...: Bob Boyd--It was deliberately deceptive political propaganda. You don't even come up with the graph unless you are trying very hard to produce something that is misleading; and you have to know the numbers to create the graph. The NYT editors make breakfast cereal advertisers feel good about themselves.; 4/20/26, 12:36 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Women decided they wanted to keep their girlish figure and avoid stretch marks, staying forever young, instead of having children. Look at all the youthful Boomers dying of old age; 4/20/26, 7:33 PM
Oso Negro said...: Bob Boyd said...
Was it an error or deliberately deceptive political propaganda?

We all know that Althouse rises far above the common run of humans who read the New York Times daily for decades yet remain utterly unaffected by political slant or propaganda.; 4/21/26, 1:50 AM
Oso Negro said...: @ boatbuilder
As it happens, yesterday I attended a 1-year birthday party for my absolutely wonderful and perfect fourth daughter, whose mom is 26. Also in attendance were two other babies around her age including her two-year-old sister, and their also 20-something moms. More babies! Oh yes indeed, a LOT more babies! :)

4/20/26, 7:55 AM; 4/21/26, 1:53 AM
Kai Akker said...: ---my absolutely wonderful and perfect fourth daughter, whose mom is 26. Also in attendance were two other babies around her age including her two-year-old sister, and their also 20-something moms. More babies!

Impressive! How big a harem are you sustaining, Oso?; 4/21/26, 8:21 AM
Cameron said...: Lets not gloss over that selling fertility treatments to over 30's women is big business. There is a huge vested interest at play; 4/21/26, 7:57 PM