Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 20, 2025 / 17:51 pm (CNA).
American adults in their 20s and 30s plan to have fewer children than adults did a decade ago, a new Pew Research Center report finds.
From 2002 to 2012, men and women ages 20 to 39 reported that they planned to have an average of 2.3 children. In 2023, the number of children adults reported they wanted decreased to an average of 1.8, according to Pew Research analysis of government data.
Pew looked at data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, specifically from the National Survey of Family Growth, which “gathers information on pregnancy and births, marriage and cohabitation, infertility, use of contraception, family life, and general and reproductive health.”
Pew reported that the total number of children included kids the respondents already had, plus any future children they planned to have. Women were asked how many “live births they have had” and men were asked how many children they have “ever fathered.” Adopted children were not included in the study numbers, but children placed for adoption were.
Differences based on gender and education
In 2023, the total number of children that men and women ages 20 to 39 planned to have fell below 2.1, which is “about the average number of children, per woman, that a population needs to replace itself over time,” according to Pew.
In 2002, the average number of children women planned to have was 2.3 and for men, it was 2.2. These numbers remained mostly stable for the next 10 years until 2012, when they began to decline.
The exact change in numbers varied depending on the age of the adults. In 2012, women ages 20 to 24 reported they planned to have an average of 2.3 children, but in 2023 the number fell to 1.5. For women ages 25 to 29 the amount of children they wanted declined from 2.3 to 1.9. For women ages 30 to 34, the number declined to 1.9 from 2.5.
The study found that there was not a significant drop for women ages 35 to 39. Among the men surveyed, the declines were similar across all age groups.
The research also found that education levels may affect how many children women age 25 to 39 intend to have. There was less of a decline in the number of children women who had “some college or less” planned to have than among women who had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
In 2002, women with some college experience planned, on average, to have 2.4 children, which only fell to 2.2 in 2023. In 2002, women with a bachelor’s degree or higher education planned to have an average of 2.1 children, but this number declined to 1.7 in 2023.
For women 30 to 34, the decline occurred almost entirely among those with a bachelor’s degree. In 2023, women in this age group with at least a bachelor’s degree planned to have 1.5 children. The number for that group was 2.1 in 2002. Those without a bachelor’s experienced almost no change.
Pew’s analysis did not find a significant difference by education among men ages 25 to 39.
Decline in number of adults who plan to have at least 1 child
The analysis found the number of adults in their 20s and 30s who have, or intend to have, at least one child also declined.
In 2012, 9 in 10 men and women reported that they planned to have at least one child. But, in 2023, this declined to 76% of men and 77% of women. The decline was primarily among young women ages 20 to 24.
In 2002, a strong majority (94%) of this group planned to have at least one child, and this remained mostly stable until 2012 with only a small shift to 93%. But by 2023, this number had declined to 66%.
Men ages 20 to 24 experienced a decline from 89% in 2012 to 75% in 2023.
Impact of lower birth rates
In 2024, Pew asked Americans about the impact of lower birth rates on the country and how effective they thought certain federal policies would be at encouraging more people to have children.
Pew reported that 47% of U.S. adults said fewer people choosing to have children would have a negative impact on the country, 20% said it would have a positive impact, and 31% said it would have neither a positive nor a negative impact.
When asked about what policies would be “extremely or very effective” at increasing birth rates, 60% of adults said providing free child care, 51% said requiring paid family leave, 49% said providing more tax credits for parents, and 45% said giving parents of minor children a monthly payment.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
And if Catholic marrieds decide to have conjugal relations to bring life rather than enjoy pleasure it comes down to one [the logic of the title is off the mark, because having fewer than two is one. It makes sense if the title said no more than two].
What brought us here is the influence of cultural secularism reinforced by the intellectualization of doctrine and its mollification, to wit, secularization. We had an article here on fundamentalism, the good and the bad kind. During the last pontificate the words rigid and rules were more like throwing bricks rather than refined intellectualization.
That occurs almost always in the realm of mitigation [see Amoris Laetitia], which I’ve addressed on many occasions. John Paul II addresses the misuse or conflation of mitigating circumstances in Veritatis Splendor changing the moral category of law in a form of gradualism that in effect becomes a separate category.
I think one of the major factors that has brought us to the point where couples are drastically limiting their family size, at least in the U.S., is that so many couples are struggling to make a living that pays all their bills and leaves enough money and TIME for them to enjoy even a modest lifestyle at this time in American history. (What used to be a “modest lifestyle” is now considered “near-poverty.”)
In most families, both parents have to work at a paying job just to afford an apartment in a safe neighborhood or a small house, along with cars (which generally cost around 20K for a modest car), and with the rise of cars that require computer intervention to repair, most people are not able to do their own car repairs and maintenance, even if they actually know HOW to do their own car repairs and maintenance on an older model! Food is also very expensive, and so is childcare for those parents who do not have their parents available to watch their grandchildren. (Many grandparents are working to stay afloat, too!)
Children cost money! Even healthy children cost money, but if a child has some medical issues (e.g., asthma, dyslexia or other reading issues, or in the case of my grandson, thumbs that don’t bend and require surgery, etc.)–the expenses multiply, even if there is good health care insurance (which costs money). And if the child attends a private school, tuition and other expenses add up, and if the child attends public school, there are also plenty of expenses!
Also, I think that the health of many younger adults is declining. Obesity is at an all-time high in the U.S. (average woman weighs 170 pounds and average man weighs almost 200 pounds), and many people don’t get much physical activity (although their thumbs get a workout playing video games) even if they spend the money to join a gym (which isn’t cheap)–there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of time and energy left after a long-workday to go exercise or even just take a daily walk! Unhealthy people generally aren’t as interested in sex as they are in relaxing and sleeping (and eating), especially if they are working a job that keeps them busy for 8-12 hours (or more) a day or night. Picking up kids at daycare and then coming home to wrangle a dinner and the kids–it’s hard and exhausting, and the more kids, the harder it gets. So people send out or eat out.
And I think that many women are discovering, to their sorrow, that the older they get, the harder it is to get pregnant.
I don’t think there’s a simple answer, although I know couples who are bucking the trend and living more simply, with less “material possessions”, less food (mainly eliminating junk food and dinners out) and without television or any other electronic entertainment, are home-schooling their children (and they generally have more than 2 children), and the husband is usually, but not always, the one working outside the home, sometimes at two jobs, to provide the family income.
Yes, these families are still “computer and electronics savvy,” often more so than the typical American families, but they spend that time TOGETHER on the computers or doing educational activities like school research–although they also go to museums and historic sites and interview real-life people instead of just checking out an internet site. They also enjoy family worship and devotions and celebrate traditional holidays, but not to excess because of that smaller income! And the kids are often involved in music lessons or choirs (often done by other homeschooling parents), various sports (but only one at a time!), and they get together with other kids for playdates.
And interestingly, most of these families have no overweight members. Less income means less money for high-calorie eating out or take-out. (And sometimes, there is more income than the average family because the working spouse has a high-paying profession like physician or engineer, which means that it’s more feasible to purchase healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables and less-fatty cuts of meat).
I do recognize that because of the choices in careers/jobs that they made when they were young, this kind of “Little House” lifestyle is not possible for many families. But I think many of us could “pare down” our lifestyles and expenses.
When I was married back in 1979, a book written by Mennonite Doris Janzen Longacre came out titled “Living More With Less,” and she also published the “More With Less Cookbook”–THESE TWO BOOKS resulted in a change of direction for me and my husband. Rather than jumping on the “fast track” and buying all the “stuff” that we wanted when we finished college/got good jobs), going to restaurants several nights a week, going on expensive vacations, etc., we opted to live simply, or at least, within our means, and avoid credit. I usually cooked at home–simple meals. We gave to our church. We took long walks. Our “vacations” were at local attractions–we took our girls to picnics featuring bluegrass bands or went to local parks for a Day of Play. We went to story times at the library, and the girls attended several VBSs every summer (and those are generally free or very cheap). We didn’t buy a house until we were married for five years, and even then, we bought a “fixer-upper”–and didn’t have the money to fix it up, but it was still a good house!
Of course, we also got our girls involved with the mega-expensive sport of figure skating when they were still preschoolers–but our entire family loved this sport, and my husband continued figure skating all his life until COVID killed him, and our daughters (ages 39 and 42) are still skating, coaching, competing, working on various skating tests, and involved with the local ice show! Figure skating is an expensive sport, but it’s also a FAMILY sport that keeps parents and children close and also keeps people in good shape! (My dad and mom also enjoyed watching figure skating, but their generation did roller skating.) Most of our “vacation money” went to pay for figure skating competitions and fees around the U.S. and even outside of the U.S. It’s been fun and still is.
Spending money on figure skating meant living more simply–we didn’t remodel our home, buy new furniture, buy expensive food (except when we were at competitions and had to eat out), buy new cars, and even buy new clothing, and both of our daughters had jobs when they were very young teenagers. My older daughter bought most of her clothing at a nearby Good Will–and all the kids at her prep school were envious of her clothes, which were usually quite nice and definitely unique! (When they asked where she bought them, she told them, “A little store near our neighborhood–it has a lot of cool clothes.”) Our younger daughter started working at a Subway when she was just 14, and bought her own clothes, too and she also got a free sandwich lunch–she tried EVERY kind of subway sub available!
I think it’s possible that a Simpler Lifestyle movement could start up again in the U.S. And even if families choose a “Less Simple Simpler Lifestyle,” I do think a lot of families, especially Christian families, are attempting to jump off the Fast Track and live a little more simply and cheaply. This is actually being made more possible by computer technology that allows families to have more access to information about activities, museums, vacation destinations, campsites, cheaper prices, etc. that can actually help them live cheaper. I particularly enjoy Map Quest in my car, which means that I will no longer get lost and drive miles out of my way (and spend more gas money!) attempting to find a destination! And although I am not computer savvy, I do enjoy visiting sites like The Catholic World Report and reading all the current news and also having the chance to respond via computer!
I hope younger people reading this will think about living more simply (and possibly ordering Ms. Longacre’s books, or checking them out at their library!).