The Replacement Gap
Why America’s falling birth rate matters, told as a seven-part data story.
- Tools
- Python, Tableau, CDC data
- Timeline
- 2026
- Status
- In progress
Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics Reports, Births: Final Data (2024 report, Table 2; 2007-2009 from the 2010 report).
The data, year by year
| Year | Births per woman |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 2.120 |
| 2008 | 2.072 |
| 2009 | 2.002 |
| 2010 | 1.931 |
| 2011 | 1.895 |
| 2012 | 1.881 |
| 2013 | 1.858 |
| 2014 | 1.863 |
| 2015 | 1.844 |
| 2016 | 1.821 |
| 2017 | 1.766 |
| 2018 | 1.730 |
| 2019 | 1.706 |
| 2020 | 1.642 |
| 2021 | 1.664 |
| 2022 | 1.657 |
| 2023 | 1.621 |
| 2024 | 1.600 |
The problem
A country needs about 2.1 births per woman to replace its population. The U.S. has been below that since 2008. For my economics research I am looking at why, how much the rising cost of raising kids explains, and what it means for the economy.
What I did
- Collected total fertility rates from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Reports and checked every year against the final data releases.
- Built a seven-part Tableau story: record-low births, deaths overtaking births, fewer workers per retiree, rising childcare costs, how states compare, and what it means for an aging economy.
- Working in Python to line fertility up against the cost of raising children.
Where it stands
U.S. fertility went from 2.12 in 2007 to a record low of 1.60 in 2024, down about a quarter. The cost analysis is still in progress.
What I learned
Agencies revise past numbers. The 2008 rate in later CDC reports differs from the first release, so I always cite the newest final data.