[link|http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056|I guess they're feeling a bit outnumbered]

Excerpt:

In the 1980s, however, something curious began to happen. American fertility rates\ufffdthe average number of children a woman can expect to bear in her lifetime\ufffdsuddenly began to reverse their decline. Between 1960 and 1985, the American fertility rate had fallen faster than Europe's, to 1.8, slightly below European levels and far below the \ufffdreplacement level\ufffd of 2.1 (the rate required to keep the population steady). By the 1990s American fertility had rebounded, rising back to just below the 2.1 mark.

Nobody quite knows why. Some of the recovery was the result of higher-than-average fertility among immigrants. But not all of it: fertility rose among native-born whites and blacks as well. Perhaps the most plausible, if unprovable, explanation is that higher fertility was the product of the economic boom of the 1990s combined with what one might call \ufffdsocial confidence\ufffd: America was a good country to bring more children into.

America is not unique: a few north-European countries, like Norway, have followed a similar trajectory. But it is highly unusual. Nearly every country in the world has seen its fertility rate fall recently and, by and large, the richer the country, the greater the fall. \ufffdAmerica\ufffd, says Hania Zlotnik of the United Nations Population Division, \ufffdis the world's great demographic outlier.\ufffd

Meanwhile, Europe's fertility continues to fall. Having been just below 1.9 in the mid-1980s, the rate is now less than 1.4 and it is projected to continue declining for at least another ten years. In some countries\ufffdSpain, Italy and Greece\ufffdthe fertility rate has fallen to between 1.1 and 1.3.

I say:

"Demographic outlier." That's sour grapes talk.

Does Pat Buchanan know?