Thanks for the accurate data. Elsewhere, I have read that the pre-war baby bust began in the mid-1920's--before the great depression--and so could not have been entirely a result of the difficult times of the '30's. If it isn't too much trouble, can you either confirm or disconfirm this claim?~Alypius
> In a message dated 1/26/03 8:02:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >(demographically, the boom began in 1943) > > The fertility rate (measured per 1000 women) in 1943 barely exceeded that of > 1942 (2,718 v. 2,628), follwed by declines in 1944 (2,568) and 1945 (2,491), > only a bit higher than the rates of 1941 (2,301) and 1940 (2,301). > > In 1946, however, the rate rose to 2,943 and thereafter remained above 3,000 > through 1964 (3,208) and then again in 1965 (2,928), 1966 (2,736), 1967 > (2,573), 1968 (2,477), and 1969 (2,465). I've generally heard demographers > to include the years 1946-1964 in the Baby Boom, although one might arguably > include 1965 or exclude 1946. > > The Baby Boom stands out even more starkly if one uses live birth rates per > 1,000 women: the number doesn't exceed 100 until 1946, and then does so every > year through 1964, after which it again falls below 100. (Source: Historical > Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part I, pp. 51-53.) > > DBL >
