• KevonLooney
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hmm, what could be the connection? It’s almost as if there was a “boom” of babies born 9 months after WW2 ended.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The peak year for the baby boom was 1947, not 1946. In 1947 there were 26.6 births per 1000 population, in 1946 it was 24.1. But, even though the baby boom was a noticeable change in birth rate, it wasn’t actually all that dramatic. In the depths of WWII in 1943 the birth rate was 22.7. In 1965 when the baby boom was over, it had only dropped to 19.4.

      https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NCHS-Births-and-General-Fertility-Rates-United-Sta/e6fc-ccez/data_preview

      There’s no reason that there should be a cluster of presidents born in 1946 rather than a few spread around the post-war years.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think a factor would also be post-way medical/life improvements that led to decreased infant mortality as well as longer “boomer” lifespans.

        More of them lived, and for longer

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure, slightly more for slightly longer. You’d expect a few percent more Boomers than others, but not a cluster of 3 presidents born in exactly 1946. And there’s no reason why there was only ever 1 silent generation president. There were a ton of “greatest” generation guys, and lots of boomers, but only 1 born between 1928 to 1945.

      • Wisas62@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I know you’re citing this per 1k like they would in statistics but also want to point out that with the population increase between 1946 and 1965, more babies were actually born in 1965 than 1946.

      • shastaxc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I bet they were both a year earlier than the statistics because they come from wealthy families, so they already had established homes, jobs, etc, while most people were still recovering from ww2. Having a baby right after the end of the war had to be either a luxury or a poverty sentence.