PD Editorial: California’s baby bust has long-term consequences

Californians are having fewer babies, and that will profoundly affect public policy for years to come. Local and state governments need to start planning now to handle the demographic shift.

In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, California’s birthrate was barely half of what it was two decades before. This wasn’t a sudden, unexpected dip. Rather, it reflects a long-term decline. Birthrates peaked during the Baby Boom of the late 1940s through the early 1960s and again in the early 1990s. Since then, there have been fewer babies per 1,000 residents almost every year.

This trend is not unique to California. Nationally, birthrates have fallen, too; they’ve just fallen more in California.

The fertility rate followed a similar trend. In 2008, the average California woman would have 2.15 children over the course of her lifetime. That was about the rate needed to offset deaths and maintain a population. By 2020, the rate was 1.52, one of the lowest in the country.

Without net in-migration, the low rate will result in population decline over time. Sonoma and Napa counties already have seen a population decrease due to a host of causes, just as California as a whole has experienced a drop in population.

A lower birthrate isn’t necessarily good or bad; it just is. And California needs to prepare for it.

There are some benefits to having fewer people such as less road congestion and cheaper housing thanks to reduced demand. But elected officials usually assume that populations will continue to grow. They enact legislation accordingly. Social Security, for example, is not a savings account. Rather, current workers pay the benefits of retirees. As long as there are more workers to pay in for more retirees, it works fine.

Absent pandemic or war, population growth has been a reasonable assumption historically. Now it isn’t. The lower birthrates California is experiencing will ripple across decades. Even if the birthrate begins to increase again, the current smaller generation will strain existing systems.

The most immediate effects will be in education. Fewer students will mean less demand for school buildings and teachers. That will create pressure to save money by consolidating schools. When there’s talk of closing a local school it usually becomes contentious because parents don’t want their kids to have to travel farther and alumni don’t want to lose a beloved part of their childhood. Unfortunately, communities won’t be able to avoid those conversations. School leaders would do well to begin preparing their constituents.

There also will be financial consequences for schools and for the state in general. As those young people move into adulthood, the lower number of them will mean less tax revenue unless tax rates increase. Expensive programs created now could become unaffordable in a couple of decades. Lawmakers are loath to eliminate popular programs and benefits.

Meanwhile, the average age of the population will increase. Social services for older Californians will strain state budgets.

None of which is to say that state lawmakers shouldn’t enact new programs or that school systems should start shuttering facilities tomorrow. This isn’t a critical, immediate crisis. It is a slow-burning challenge. Governments at all levels of California ignore it at their and their taxpayers’ own peril.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.