by 
The general rule of thumb is that you can mark your calendars—9 months after a calamity hits there’ll be a baby boom.
So, I’m starting to wonder… is it too soon to start marking the calendars? Since this financial crisis is being made out to be something of epic proportions it might just be the case.
Or will it be the case that fewer people have children since they’ll be worried about the mouths they’ll have to feed?
(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)
I don’t know if nowadays I would count on a baby boom following a financial depression. With the availability and low cost of contraceptive options, that have high efficacy, I would have to say that a baby boom is most likely a No.
On a side note, I have read before that a baby boomlet occurred in 2006 and 2007, as the number of births went up quite high (I proudly took part in that, as my daughter was born in February of 2007). Those were also years where the Economy was doing pretty well. From what I have heard so far, 2008 may have experienced a drop in births due to the falling economy. My guess would be that 2009 may have even less births since many people do not want to have children in the midst of a financial crisis.
Power outages, however, usually contribute to higher birthrates in their localities 9 months later.
militarywifeys last blog post..“Designer” babies? No thanks, I’ll take mine “As Is”
@militarywifey: As I was writing this I knew that there could also be the opposite effect– fewer conceptions– and yet I seem to remember that around 9/11 there was a burst of pregnancies (though I could be wrong and stand ready to be corrected!). I think that in times of uncertainty, people seek out their strong personal bonds.