I read this on Yahoo the other day (well, March 18 to be precise).
The graph rather impressively shows that in 2007 we had more births than even in the post World War II decade.
The article states: "On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself."
Of course, I thought of my Harry Dent post because he said the same thing about the 2.1 babies per children. I had it "per family" but it makes more sense "per woman" until men start having more babies anyway. Which leads to an entirely new line of thinking about how the family should follow women given their singular ability. But I'll leave that line to another day.
The article further states that 2007 was probably the 2nd year of a "boomlet" and I suppose if it goes on as long as the other one it grows up into a "boom."
I wonder what the recession does to birth rates? First answer that comes to mind is that it should decline because of uncertain financial means. But I bet it goes up. We humans seem to use most any occasion as a reason to procreate and I suspect recession is just as good as a power blackout. (Thinking that people will be more alone with each other and not going out as much maybe?)