Across the United States and within specific faith communities like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a new urgency is emerging around a problem that’s both deeply personal and national in scope: the country’s baby bust. The numbers don’t lie. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. birth rate fell to an all-time low in 2024, with women having an average of just 1.6 babies each. This trend is mirrored among Latter-day Saints, where leaders have begun to address the issue head-on in their most public forums.
During the October 2025 General Conference, new church President Dallin Oaks urged members to remember the “value of children.” It wasn’t just a passing comment. The declining birthrate has become a topic of concern for church leaders, who see it as a threat to both the faith’s future and the broader social fabric. Families like Ryan and Missy Allen, featured in a recent report by KUER’s Ciara Hulet for National Public Radio, embody the pressures facing would-be parents. They wanted three children but found the costs—child care, housing, and everyday expenses—simply too daunting to expand their family.
This isn’t just a Latter-day Saint story. As The Salt Lake Tribune and National Public Radio have both reported, economic headwinds are making it tough for families everywhere. Brigham Young University family life professor Spencer James pointed to the high price of child care, rocketing housing costs, and dwindling community support as major factors behind the falling birthrate. Blogger Linda Hamilton, writing for Exponent II, put it bluntly: “It’s a lack of affordable housing, no child care, low wages, inflation, student loans, etc. If the church used just a sliver of [its] massive wealth and organizational base to support at least one of the issues, there would be changes, at the very least in Utah.”
But is there a silver lining? Some researchers think so, pointing to a surprising and somewhat accidental experiment: the COVID-19 pandemic’s remote work revolution. A 2025 study from Stanford University and other institutions, which analyzed data from 19,000 workers in 38 countries, found a “positive relationship” between remote or hybrid work schedules and the likelihood of having children. Between 2021 and 2025, the United States saw an additional 80,000 births, a bump attributed to the pandemic-driven shift to working from home.
Technology executive Logan Maley’s story, as told to USA Today, puts a human face on the data. After her first child, Maley had a flexible office setup but still struggled with the emotional toll of being away from her baby. When the pandemic forced her and her husband to work from home, they found themselves sharing meals, witnessing milestones, and—feeling more present at home—decided it was the right moment to have a second child. “We were both at home and we thought we might as well while the world is falling apart,” Maley said. She described remote work as non-negotiable now, noting, “I would certainly be a lot less likely to have more kids if I had to go into the office.”
The numbers back up her experience. The Stanford-led study found that couples where even one partner worked from home were more likely to have a child. Flexibility about when, where, and how to work emerged as a crucial factor in fertility decisions. As Stanford economics professor and study co-author Nick Bloom put it, “You can’t get pregnant by email.” The pandemic’s flexibility allowed parents to skip long commutes, be present for school pickups, and even find time for themselves—all factors that made the prospect of another child less daunting.
This isn’t the only study to suggest a link. A 2023 survey of 3,000 American women led by economist Adam Ozimek and demographer Lyman Stone found that women working remotely were more likely to plan to have a baby, especially if they were educated, affluent, and older. About 15-20% of women working remotely were trying to conceive, compared to just 10-14% of employed women without remote work options. Remote workers in the survey were also more likely to marry. Ozimek and Stone concluded, “We believe this evidence is suggestive that the ‘return to the office’ may contribute to falling birth rates, and that governments interested in supporting marriage and implementing pro-natal policies may be interested in considering how flexible work arrangements can be supported and encouraged.”
But the picture is complicated. Even as researchers tout the benefits of remote work for family life, a backlash is brewing among some political and business leaders. President Donald Trump’s administration ordered federal employees back to the office full-time, and major corporations like Amazon and JPMorgan Chase have followed suit. Skeptics, including Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, have questioned the productivity of remote workers. Former Trump adviser and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has gone so far as to call working from home “morally wrong.”
Nick Bloom sees a contradiction here. “The odd thing is the current Trump-Vance administration is trying to end work from home despite pushing for higher birth rates,” he told USA Today. “I would think any government wanting more American babies would embrace work from home. You can’t force couples to have kids, but it sure helps if you make it a lot easier, and working from home does that in spades.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has floated a variety of pro-natalist policies, including expanding access to in vitro fertilization and proposing a one-time $5,000 cash “baby bonus” for mothers. Yet as experience in other countries shows, government incentives alone may not be enough. Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Hungary have all rolled out paid parental leave, subsidized child care, and other perks, but their birth rates remain stubbornly low.
The reasons for America’s baby bust are hotly debated. Many couples cite the high cost of living, delayed marriage, and shifting priorities as reasons for having fewer children. Some say they simply want more time for their careers or leisure. Others point to men’s unequal participation in child care and household work. Wellesley economics professor Phillip Levine cautions against overselling remote work as a panacea. “Given the evidence that is available today, it’s hard to say that it has a major influence,” Levine said. Still, he acknowledges that flexible work arrangements can be a boon for families, even if they don’t solve every problem.
Within the Latter-day Saint community, the conversation is evolving. J. Anette Dennis, first counselor in the worldwide Relief Society presidency, drew praise for her October 2025 General Conference address, in which she spoke candidly about her own struggles with depression and the need for “genuine love, understanding and support” rather than judgment. Her openness was hailed by bloggers and commentators as a sign that the church is beginning to reckon with the real-life challenges facing its members.
As the United States and its diverse communities grapple with the baby bust, one thing is clear: there’s no single solution. Economic realities, workplace policies, cultural expectations, and personal choices all play a role. Whether the remote work revolution can truly move the needle remains to be seen, but it’s sparked a conversation that’s likely to shape family life—and public policy—for years to come.