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