The coming population decline and its implications. (1 Viewer)

[Hot Diggity Dog]

And since we have a whole other thread where we discuss the economy, back to specifics on this topic….kids used to be labor. On the farm. In a factory when they were teenagers. They were net financial benefits to the family after the first decade or so, or at least pulling their own weight. More kids meant more hands to work the land or bring in money.

There are some countries where that still is the case - the ones with high birth rates. In more developed countries, it has shifted to kids now being a straight up expense until they’re in their 20s (and more and more, beyond). So what do we do about it?

Economies grow because they produce more. That comes both from more people AND more productivity. Productivity is going to have to pick up more and more of the slack as the population stops growing and declines. Do we not think that can continue to happen, and even accelerate? Maybe that’s the dividing line between people who’s think this will be a disaster and those who think we’ll figure it out?

I don't think productivity is the problem, I think finding and holding a stable population will be. Productivity doesn't matter if your population goes to zero. For arguments sake let's say 4 billion people is an optimal number for a worldwide population, that number still has to be maintained. What I am calling Modern Society isn't proving to be able to currently maintain itself. Is it a problem that needs a technological answer, like a breakthrough in human longevity, or a conscious choice to prioritize having children, or maybe it is just a biological cycle and when the crash starts to have real effects on human society the natural answer will suddenly make sense and solve itself?

 

[SFBayDuck]

Productivity doesn't matter if your population goes to zero.

And what year will that happen? If it’s the 8B on the planet or only the 333M in the US, methinks it’ll be awhile. And yes, that’ll give technology, ie our ingenuity, time to compensate to keep the worst from happening. It doesn’t have to “solve itself”.

I think your reference to longevity is an astute one. While I’m doing everything I can to retire in my 50s, that’s not the norm and it’s highly likely that our median productive years will continue to expand along with longevity and our “healthspan”.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.

Ah, the Thanos theory. “I am inevitable”.

Apparently he could have just waited a few decades and it would have taken care of itself. Would've saved a lot of trouble.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

In all seriousness, isn't this kind of necessary? With our continual exponential population increase we are going to run into serious problems with resources and space eventually, and probably sooner than we think.

1000 years ago there were fewer people in the entire world than there are in the US alone right now. Every 100 years the population increased by around 35 million. It increases by double that amount PER YEAR now.

In the last 100 years the population has increased by 7 BILLION! In just 100 years. That doesn't seem sustainable.

 

[djmich]

In all seriousness, isn't this kind of necessary? With our continual exponential population increase we are going to run into serious problems with resources and space eventually, and probably sooner than we think.

1000 years ago there were fewer people in the entire world than there are in the US alone right now. Every 100 years the population increased by around 35 million. It increases by double that amount PER YEAR now.

In the last 100 years the population has increased by 7 BILLION! In just 100 years. That doesn't seem sustainable.

Agree. Its the difference in decline vs slow or no growth. Decline may be very problematic, but moderating the pace of growth would be very good imo.

 

[Grahamburn]

I guess I better get that vasectomy reversed. Off to Publix to store up frozen peas.

Hmm my wife is currently pushing for me to get a vasectomy. Maybe I need to show her these trends.

Note: I'm a wimp when it comes to pain tolerance and both my wife and I suffer from fertility issues so our odds of getting pregnant naturally are very slim as is - hence my hesitation.

Terrorist - Next time you have the chance to impregnate someone. Don’t hesitate.

McClane- Thanks for the advice.

 

[Rich Conway]

Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.

The problem is stabilization. If the world population halved, for it to stay at that number every woman would have to have like 2.3 kids. No modern society is near that, so the question is how a society would get it up to that and maintain it without reverting to a preindustrial society.

You're using math, but failing to take into account potential improvements in health care. If people live longer and can be productive healthy* longer and child survival rates continue to improve, 2.3 would no longer be required to achieve equilibrium.

As a fantasy example, consider if an advancement was made such that humans became immortal. Equilibrium would be achieved at 0 kids per person. I'm not suggesting humans will become immortal anytime soon, but what if people start regularly living to 150 and staying healthy well into the 100s?

* I don't think "productive" will have much meaning a century into the future. Humans as a group will likely need to do very little to maintain the necessities and a high standard of life.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We cannot trust people to make economic predictions 6 months out. I am not worried about what someone says is going to happen in a generation, or two, from now.

People can't predict the weather tomorrow. Therefore we can't predict long-run climate patterns.

Exact same argument. Sometimes it's actually easier to forecast long-run trends than day-to-day fluctuations. Demographics, climate, and economic forecasting all have that feature in common.

 

[[icon]]

Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.

If the population halves (on a global level), we will be back in ~1990. Not a big deal.

And it likely wont be for over a century from now. This world will likely be a ruined hellscape long before then.

Even if its not, people will migrate if they can, to denser population centers and life will continue fairly normally, just in fewer places.

 

[WVU Alum]

I won’t be around when it really becomes an issue, so…

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.

I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.

Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.

Definitely. Average marriage age in America is 28.5. The oldest it has ever been.

This is a hugely important data point IMO, because it indicates that something is happening besides "kids are expensive." For whatever reason (it's probably a combination of a bunch of things, but who knows), people are just waiting longer to get their adult lives started. By the time I was 28.5, I was married with two kids, a house, and a solid career. Hardly anybody in what would be my peer group is on that schedule anymore.

For any particular individual, it may be perfectly rational to enjoy your 20s and consume experiences while you can easily do so. No judgement at all. But it's pretty easy to see how that would shape our demographics if all of society started to bend that way. People -- educated people in particular -- just aren't leaving enough time to have kids.

At least for the US, I see that social change as being a key driver of the phenomenon we're talking about, but as others have noted, this is happening all over and I honestly have no idea if Japan (for example) is experiencing this same thing.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

And since we have a whole other thread where we discuss the economy, back to specifics on this topic….kids used to be labor. On the farm. In a factory when they were teenagers. They were net financial benefits to the family after the first decade or so, or at least pulling their own weight. More kids meant more hands to work the land or bring in money.

There are some countries where that still is the case - the ones with high birth rates. In more developed countries, it has shifted to kids now being a straight up expense until they’re in their 20s (and more and more, beyond). So what do we do about it?

Economies grow because they produce more. That comes both from more people AND more productivity. Productivity is going to have to pick up more and more of the slack as the population stops growing and declines. Do we not think that can continue to happen, and even accelerate? Maybe that’s the dividing line between people who’s think this will be a disaster and those who think we’ll figure it out?

The overpopulation scare of the 70s didn’t come to pass because the doomsayers didn’t account for how technological advances might address the problem. The same thing could happen here.

 

[Clown Car]

I’m doing my part!

Me too.

 

[massraider]

And since we have a whole other thread where we discuss the economy, back to specifics on this topic….kids used to be labor. On the farm. In a factory when they were teenagers. They were net financial benefits to the family after the first decade or so, or at least pulling their own weight. More kids meant more hands to work the land or bring in money.

There are some countries where that still is the case - the ones with high birth rates. In more developed countries, it has shifted to kids now being a straight up expense until they’re in their 20s (and more and more, beyond). So what do we do about it?

Economies grow because they produce more. That comes both from more people AND more productivity. Productivity is going to have to pick up more and more of the slack as the population stops growing and declines. Do we not think that can continue to happen, and even accelerate? Maybe that’s the dividing line between people who’s think this will be a disaster and those who think we’ll figure it out?

The overpopulation scare of the 70s didn’t come to pass because the doomsayers didn’t account for how technological advances might address the problem. The same thing could happen here.

The unintended consequences.
Good and bad. On the scale of what we are talking about, I find it hard to believe people can predict this with any accuracy.

 

[Jayrod]

The results of the sexual revolution, birth control and women's rights have had a massive impact on birth rates.

This is a social issue and without religious motivations; women not needing a man to take care of and provide for them and men not needing to get married to get laid means less motivation for marriage on both sides.

 

[Capella]

It’s just social media but you see a lot of 20-30 year olds on there saying they can’t afford to bring kids into this world and then also climate related issues. I can’t blame them. If you’re 35 and have a good job and still can’t buy a house bc some corporation is outbidding you with cash it’s gotta be deflating.

 

[Zow]

The results of the sexual revolution, birth control and women's rights have had a massive impact on birth rates.

This is a social issue and without religious motivations; women not needing a man to take care of and provide for them and men not needing to get married to get laid means less motivation for marriage on both sides.

Yep. I'd add to that as well that the economy (particularly housing costs) now makes it very difficult for a family to survive on a single income. So, women are naturally now more inclined to become career-oriented as even if they choose to marry and have kids they still likely need to work. As such, some women probably then get more focused on their jobs, enjoy their income, and choose as a personal choice to not have kids.

(Nothing of these comments are intended to suggest these changes are good or bad or political in some way)

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Productivity doesn't matter if your population goes to zero.

And what year will that happen? If it’s the 8B on the planet or only the 333M in the US, methinks it’ll be awhile. And yes, that’ll give technology, ie our ingenuity, time to compensate to keep the worst from happening. It doesn’t have to “solve itself”.

I think your reference to longevity is an astute one. While I’m doing everything I can to retire in my 50s, that’s not the norm and it’s highly likely that our median productive years will continue to expand along with longevity and our “healthspan”.

Zero is hyperbole, yes but if population halves and is still on a downward trend how productive a person or automation can be doesn't matter, the issue is the continuance of the society. I don't think this would cause humans to go extinct but a crash from 8 billion down to say 1 billion or 500 million is going to be a rough ride down for a lot of people. If we can't use our technology and intelligence to stop that I'm not sure any future technology, we create is going to be used wisely or in the best manner.
Maybe this is a natural cycle of an intelligent species that has to play out so our future generations will have an example to not copy when we start to grow population again.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I was inspired by the Death and Loss of religion thread, because the decline of religion of all kinds and across all societies in the world at least correlates to the population replacement rates of societies plummeting. But there is a lot more to this phenomenon then just that factor alone. It would be interesting to hear other people's reaction to this.

So, what is happening? Virtually all societies and nations across the world are now in a population decline, except the poorest countries in the world. At current rates South Korea will have 4 people for every 100 that are alive now in the year 2100, China will halve its population somewhere between the year 2050 and 2060 and continue on a downward path from there. Ethnicities and cultures like Russian and Japanese will disappear by the end of the century. There just won't be enough people to keep these places alive. The numbers are pretty straight forward on this and at some point, it is a process that a population cannot recover from.

So, why does this matter? Anyone under the age of 50 is going to witness a huge economic contraction in their lifetime first of all. Even if AI and automation can maintain output levels there isn't going to be enough people to maintain consumption. It seems logical to me that a lot of things are just going to go away because the economies of scale won't justify their production. And as production slows and international trade stops, I think there will a bit of a feedback loop where the more fragile but important supply chains fall apart, like global food production. It will vary from not getting many types of foods than ones that can be grown locally to whole nations facing starvation as access to fertilizer and food supplies stops. Beyond that who knows exactly what happens, how does an aged population care for itself? How do governments continue with dwindling resources of both population and money? All kinds of things we take for granted in an expanding industrialized world are fragile and lack of maintenance, and demand could stop or greatly curtail mass production of say electricity. Nothing that has been built will not crumble away if isn't maintained.

So, why is this happening? The cause of this isn't political, although some policies of different countries might hinder or hasten it. The main trends that correlate with the population decline are, urbanization, industrialization, higher levels of education, higher levels of national wealth, and declining rates of religious belief. The different levels of causation for each category certainly can be argued. I do think that this combination of factors has produced a belief system that rises up in every society that has gone down this path to modern industrialization, no matter their political or ethnic conditions and beliefs. Something, or probably more correctly many things, about this modern world that has been built slows what might have previously been considered the most basic urge of any species, mammalian anyways, having sex and reproducing. It is amazing when you research it, how little sex modern people have compared even to their grandparent's generation. The only people that worldwide that reproduce at a more rate that expands their population are the 1% people in regard to wealth, the highly religious, and the poorest countries mostly located in Sub Saharran Africa. An understanding of the why could lead us to an understanding of what really is fulfilling to people and how a future society could be built build that is technological and sustainable long term.

So, what do you think? This is a pretty broad stroke coverage of this topic, but I hope there is interest in it.

I think that religion , or lack there of, is a factor here. Most religions push for more kids. It means more converts. More people are thinking for themselves now and realize that 6+ kids ain’t that fun/great. It might be(I only have 1) but it’s a hell of a lot of work and money. And with that autonomous thinking, people are also thinking about finances and living their own lives. Having 3-4 kids over a 6-12 year span really limits what you can do with your life for the following 24-40 years. No thanks.

I was 35 when I first got married. Had a house was financially stable. Wife is 10 years younger. LAM! We chose to only have 1 kid. One factor amongst many was I didn’t want to be 60+ with kids in high school. 55 was old enough I’m excited to travel with just my wife now. While I’m still young/able enough to do everything.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

And since we have a whole other thread where we discuss the economy, back to specifics on this topic….kids used to be labor. On the farm. In a factory when they were teenagers. They were net financial benefits to the family after the first decade or so, or at least pulling their own weight. More kids meant more hands to work the land or bring in money.

There are some countries where that still is the case - the ones with high birth rates. In more developed countries, it has shifted to kids now being a straight up expense until they’re in their 20s (and more and more, beyond). So what do we do about it?

Economies grow because they produce more. That comes both from more people AND more productivity. Productivity is going to have to pick up more and more of the slack as the population stops growing and declines. Do we not think that can continue to happen, and even accelerate? Maybe that’s the dividing line between people who’s think this will be a disaster and those who think we’ll figure it out?

, or maybe it is just a biological cycle and when the crash starts to have real effects on human society the natural answer will suddenly make sense and solve itself?

Also This. The planet will self correct eventually.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.

I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.

Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.

Definitely. Average marriage age in America is 28.5. The oldest it has ever been.

This is a hugely important data point IMO, because it indicates that something is happening besides "kids are expensive." For whatever reason (it's probably a combination of a bunch of things, but who knows), people are just waiting longer to get their adult lives started. By the time I was 28.5, I was married with two kids, a house, and a solid career. Hardly anybody in what would be my peer group is on that schedule anymore.

For any particular individual, it may be perfectly rational to enjoy your 20s and consume experiences while you can easily do so. No judgement at all. But it's pretty easy to see how that would shape our demographics if all of society started to bend that way. People -- educated people in particular -- just aren't leaving enough time to have kids.

At least for the US, I see that social change as being a key driver of the phenomenon we're talking about, but as others have noted, this is happening all over and I honestly have no idea if Japan (for example) is experiencing this same thing.

I think a lot of what is happening is our emphasis on individuality has killed our sense of responsibility to maintain society. I will confess my own contribution to it in my own life, so this isn't a judgement on people that have made that choice, just an observation on what would be one of the causes.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

The results of the sexual revolution, birth control and women's rights have had a massive impact on birth rates.

This is a social issue and without religious motivations; women not needing a man to take care of and provide for them and men not needing to get married to get laid means less motivation for marriage on both sides.

Yep. I'd add to that as well that the economy (particularly housing costs) now makes it very difficult for a family to survive on a single income. So, women are naturally now more inclined to become career-oriented as even if they choose to marry and have kids they still likely need to work. As such, some women probably then get more focused on their jobs, enjoy their income, and choose as a personal choice to not have kids.

(Nothing of these comments are intended to suggest these changes are good or bad or political in some way)

This has been the case here in SoCal for over 25 years. Maybe longer.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I was inspired by the Death and Loss of religion thread, because the decline of religion of all kinds and across all societies in the world at least correlates to the population replacement rates of societies plummeting. But there is a lot more to this phenomenon then just that factor alone. It would be interesting to hear other people's reaction to this.

So, what is happening? Virtually all societies and nations across the world are now in a population decline, except the poorest countries in the world. At current rates South Korea will have 4 people for every 100 that are alive now in the year 2100, China will halve its population somewhere between the year 2050 and 2060 and continue on a downward path from there. Ethnicities and cultures like Russian and Japanese will disappear by the end of the century. There just won't be enough people to keep these places alive. The numbers are pretty straight forward on this and at some point, it is a process that a population cannot recover from.

So, why does this matter? Anyone under the age of 50 is going to witness a huge economic contraction in their lifetime first of all. Even if AI and automation can maintain output levels there isn't going to be enough people to maintain consumption. It seems logical to me that a lot of things are just going to go away because the economies of scale won't justify their production. And as production slows and international trade stops, I think there will a bit of a feedback loop where the more fragile but important supply chains fall apart, like global food production. It will vary from not getting many types of foods than ones that can be grown locally to whole nations facing starvation as access to fertilizer and food supplies stops. Beyond that who knows exactly what happens, how does an aged population care for itself? How do governments continue with dwindling resources of both population and money? All kinds of things we take for granted in an expanding industrialized world are fragile and lack of maintenance, and demand could stop or greatly curtail mass production of say electricity. Nothing that has been built will not crumble away if isn't maintained.

So, why is this happening? The cause of this isn't political, although some policies of different countries might hinder or hasten it. The main trends that correlate with the population decline are, urbanization, industrialization, higher levels of education, higher levels of national wealth, and declining rates of religious belief. The different levels of causation for each category certainly can be argued. I do think that this combination of factors has produced a belief system that rises up in every society that has gone down this path to modern industrialization, no matter their political or ethnic conditions and beliefs. Something, or probably more correctly many things, about this modern world that has been built slows what might have previously been considered the most basic urge of any species, mammalian anyways, having sex and reproducing. It is amazing when you research it, how little sex modern people have compared even to their grandparent's generation. The only people that worldwide that reproduce at a more rate that expands their population are the 1% people in regard to wealth, the highly religious, and the poorest countries mostly located in Sub Saharran Africa. An understanding of the why could lead us to an understanding of what really is fulfilling to people and how a future society could be built build that is technological and sustainable long term.

So, what do you think? This is a pretty broad stroke coverage of this topic, but I hope there is interest in it.

I think that religion , or lack there of, is a factor here. Most religions push for more kids. It means more converts. More people are thinking for themselves now and realize that 6+ kids ain’t that fun/great. It might be(I only have 1) but it’s a hell of a lot of work and money. And with that autonomous thinking, people are also thinking about finances and living their own lives. Having 3-4 kids over a 6-12 year span really limits what you can do with your life for the following 24-40 years. No thanks.

I was 35 when I first got married. Had a house was financially stable. Wife is 10 years younger. LAM! We chose to only have 1 kid. One factor amongst many was I didn’t want to be 60+ with kids in high school. 55 was old enough I’m excited to travel with just my wife now. While I’m still young/able enough to do everything.

Certainly, and many people are predicting that the groups that maintain a highly religious will inherit the Earth. I can't help but think a societal organization that cannot sustain itself is highly flawed. But it seems our evolution doesn't match our technology yet.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I was inspired by the Death and Loss of religion thread, because the decline of religion of all kinds and across all societies in the world at least correlates to the population replacement rates of societies plummeting. But there is a lot more to this phenomenon then just that factor alone. It would be interesting to hear other people's reaction to this.

So, what is happening? Virtually all societies and nations across the world are now in a population decline, except the poorest countries in the world. At current rates South Korea will have 4 people for every 100 that are alive now in the year 2100, China will halve its population somewhere between the year 2050 and 2060 and continue on a downward path from there. Ethnicities and cultures like Russian and Japanese will disappear by the end of the century. There just won't be enough people to keep these places alive. The numbers are pretty straight forward on this and at some point, it is a process that a population cannot recover from.

So, why does this matter? Anyone under the age of 50 is going to witness a huge economic contraction in their lifetime first of all. Even if AI and automation can maintain output levels there isn't going to be enough people to maintain consumption. It seems logical to me that a lot of things are just going to go away because the economies of scale won't justify their production. And as production slows and international trade stops, I think there will a bit of a feedback loop where the more fragile but important supply chains fall apart, like global food production. It will vary from not getting many types of foods than ones that can be grown locally to whole nations facing starvation as access to fertilizer and food supplies stops. Beyond that who knows exactly what happens, how does an aged population care for itself? How do governments continue with dwindling resources of both population and money? All kinds of things we take for granted in an expanding industrialized world are fragile and lack of maintenance, and demand could stop or greatly curtail mass production of say electricity. Nothing that has been built will not crumble away if isn't maintained.

So, why is this happening? The cause of this isn't political, although some policies of different countries might hinder or hasten it. The main trends that correlate with the population decline are, urbanization, industrialization, higher levels of education, higher levels of national wealth, and declining rates of religious belief. The different levels of causation for each category certainly can be argued. I do think that this combination of factors has produced a belief system that rises up in every society that has gone down this path to modern industrialization, no matter their political or ethnic conditions and beliefs. Something, or probably more correctly many things, about this modern world that has been built slows what might have previously been considered the most basic urge of any species, mammalian anyways, having sex and reproducing. It is amazing when you research it, how little sex modern people have compared even to their grandparent's generation. The only people that worldwide that reproduce at a more rate that expands their population are the 1% people in regard to wealth, the highly religious, and the poorest countries mostly located in Sub Saharran Africa. An understanding of the why could lead us to an understanding of what really is fulfilling to people and how a future society could be built build that is technological and sustainable long term.

So, what do you think? This is a pretty broad stroke coverage of this topic, but I hope there is interest in it.

I think that religion , or lack there of, is a factor here. Most religions push for more kids. It means more converts. More people are thinking for themselves now and realize that 6+ kids ain’t that fun/great. It might be(I only have 1) but it’s a hell of a lot of work and money. And with that autonomous thinking, people are also thinking about finances and living their own lives. Having 3-4 kids over a 6-12 year span really limits what you can do with your life for the following 24-40 years. No thanks.

I was 35 when I first got married. Had a house was financially stable. Wife is 10 years younger. LAM! We chose to only have 1 kid. One factor amongst many was I didn’t want to be 60+ with kids in high school. 55 was old enough I’m excited to travel with just my wife now. While I’m still young/able enough to do everything.

Certainly, and many people are predicting that the groups that maintain a highly religious will inherit the Earth. I can't help but think a societal organization that cannot sustain itself is highly flawed. But it seems our evolution doesn't match our technology yet.

I don’t think any of the current religions will be in play. But if everything gets all dystopian, it would make sense that that a group with a strong sense of community would prevail, or at least do well.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Great topic.

I have zero issues with population decline and I think the US needs to participate instead of counteracting it.

I dont enjoy crowded spaces. I never will. Almost everywhere is crowded now. Luckily I was made for heat so I can go places during times of the year that others cant and still enjoy myself.

So many places require permits now that never used to. Places get trashed that barely even saw footprints before.

No thanks.

 

[Hastur]

Hans Rosling spoke about population growth, decline, sustainability, and various factors about 10-15 years ago. Are his ideas already out of date?

Link 1

Link 2

 

[bigbottom]

@General Malaise needs to step up and save the world.

Doesn't he have like 15 kids? Sounds like he's done his part?

Damn it.

With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Great topic.

I have zero issues with population decline and I think the US needs to participate instead of counteracting it.

I dont enjoy crowded spaces. I never will. Almost everywhere is crowded now. Luckily I was made for heat so I can go places during times of the year that others cant and still enjoy myself.

So many places require permits now that never used to. Places get trashed that barely even saw footprints before.

No thanks.

So, I will try to tread lightly here and try not sound judgmental. I'm not making this a personal attack I just want to probe a bit deeper into this mindset. You and others have expressed this type of attitude which I can only describe as misanthropic. You certainly find very little about Modern Society that you like but seemingly ignore or haven't explored ways to take yourself out of it. I mean if you enjoy heat and being away from people there is a huge swath of the middle of our country where you can live and be far away from crowds of people. Urbanization is not a natural setting for a majority of humans, of that I am convinced, but even people that are really repelled by living there continue on when there even though we have a whole continent we could spread and live in rather than cram ourselves into cities. I am really curious what is it that makes you stay somewhere you feel miserable about?

 

[Harry Manback]

It seems pretty clear the cause is a stagnating wage with an increased cost of living combined with little to no support from the governments regarding childcare, education and healthcare.

Bottom line: Kids are expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. College is expensive. Food is expensive. Child care is expensive. Our climate future is bleak.

Lot's of people do not want to have kids to introduce them in a increasingly bleak world where they may not be able to get decent healthcare during their pregnancy, afford college for their child or afford child care for their children. Not many families can afford to live on a single income.

Having kids has not been incentivized at all.

Whether or not you want to see that as "political" is up to you, but it seems obvious to me those are the issues.

 

[steelerfan1]

Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.

If the population halves (on a global level), we will be back in ~1990. Not a big deal.

This world will likely be a ruined hellscape long before then.

you ever consider working for Hallmark?

 

[Zow]

It seems pretty clear the cause is a stagnating wage with an increased cost of living combined with little to no support from the governments regarding childcare, education and healthcare.

Bottom line: Kids are expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. College is expensive. Food is expensive. Child care is expensive. Our climate future is bleak.

Lot's of people do not want to have kids to introduce them in a increasingly bleak world where they may not be able to get decent healthcare during their pregnancy, afford college for their child or afford child care for their children. Not many families can afford to live on a single income.

Having kids has not been incentivized at all.

Whether or not you want to see that as "political" is up to you, but it seems obvious to me those are the issues.

Read a study recently where the average kid in an affluent household will cost his parents ~$500k to raise and, in a more modest to middle class household, ~$300k.

That ain't cheap and that money could otherwise be put towards a lot of investments and/or quality recreation.

 

[WVU Alum]

It seems pretty clear the cause is a stagnating wage with an increased cost of living combined with little to no support from the governments regarding childcare, education and healthcare.

Bottom line: Kids are expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. College is expensive. Food is expensive. Child care is expensive. Our climate future is bleak.

Lot's of people do not want to have kids to introduce them in a increasingly bleak world where they may not be able to get decent healthcare during their pregnancy, afford college for their child or afford child care for their children. Not many families can afford to live on a single income.

Having kids has not been incentivized at all.

Whether or not you want to see that as "political" is up to you, but it seems obvious to me those are the issues.

Read a study recently where the average kid in an affluent household will cost his parents ~$500k to raise and, in a more modest to middle class household, ~$300k.

That ain't cheap and that money could otherwise be put towards a lot of investments and/or quality recreation.

I did the math at work one day. If I did not have my three kids, my wife would likely still be employed with the Fed. We would 100% have a beach house and boat.

 

[MAC_32]

Unless you are going to specifically blame one party or the other, I think you would be able to say what you want. I will say that there are lots of reasons for wages for falling and for this discussion one of them was women entering the work force which increased the labor pool and depress wages and also depressed birthrate. We can argue academically on objective facts that happened in the past. My point is people in the past and currently are poorer and in some cases much poorer than modern societies but have higher birthrates. For a society that can control its birthrate through medical and social means maintaining a stable level of population looks like it is going to need a conscious choice by that society.

Then the top of the food chain needs to prioritize paying us plebs instead of saving up for their next super yacht.

Fact is, an average educated mid-20 something with some support and didn't make stupid decisions with their choice of college is looking at ~$30K in debt and a ~$50K job. This is not a cost prior generations were saddled with. The actual number is higher than that, but it's heavily skewed by the coasts where the CoL is significantly higher. So for the sake of this example, let's paint an example elsewhere to demonstrate sacrifice- I chose to live in misc suburb of misc flyover city and still can't afford a family!

But anyway, that mid-20 something isn't going to be able to pay much more than the minimum on their student loan debt, it'll hover over them until they're in their 40's, starting at a rate of about $5K per yr. They also have other expenditures to budget their elders didn't (yes this is a trend). i.e. no, they don't need the latest iphone, but they need a phone (and internet), and off the top of my head I'd very surprised if that can be done for under $2K per yr. These costs aren't needle movers for those of us mid-career, but they add up very quickly for those just starting - probably 15-20% of their pre-tax wages. This only makes it that much more burdensome to save up for the big one- a down payment on a house.

It'd be one thing if it the environment were like pre-covid but the all cash, above asking, inspection waived market that developed then is still alive and well - only now it comes with a 6-7% interest rate. This is not a cost prior generations were saddled with. Yes, I know interest rates were much worse in previous decades, but the annual income : down payment ratio wasn't anything like it is now. So they have to come up with minimum ~$25K for a down payment then be able to afford ~$1700 per month just to get in a house. Assume to this point these now spouses were fiscally responsible starting off- they sought out roommates, spent frugally, and minimized travel. It's still going to be a bear to get by paying less than $10K per yr in rent...each. That's more than 20% of their pre-tax wages and we haven't gotten to transportation (used car + insurance --> $6K per yr?), health care (healthy + ACA --> $5K per yr?), food (if very frugal --> $4K per yr?), and other essentials (utilities / clothes / toiletries / etc - $5K per yr?). Before we even consider the subject of saving, multiple the 2 together and we're at ~$75K in spend with ~$100K of pre-tax income. Tax obviously varies, but I like round numbers, so let's call post tax income $80K. Now, they're could be some corner cutting, especially with transportation (either bike or bus), but doing so limits rental options and increases the tax rate (urban living costs more than rural).

Put all this together and each of them have about $5K per year to put towards savings - whether that's investments, rainy day fund, or down payment for a house. And doesn't consider contingency - stuff breaks, including humans. Now, mid-20 somethings won't be able to invest according to general guidance, but it'd be real stupid not to invest anything, right? $2500 is not enough, but pragmatically, can this couple go any further? Similar story with the rainy day fund- they won't be able to store away 6 months worth of living expenses, but $100-150 per month adds up over time so budget $1250 per yr. That has an expiration date, if it's not needed, but then those dollars need shifted to investments because we're already years behind, so call it a wash. That leaves $1250 per year to save for a house. Put both budgets together and you have $2500. Basic math says they're 10 year out from considering buying a home.

Now, let's assume that happens- economies of scale kick in once you're living together. Some of those costs cool, but they quickly evaporate with maintenance on the house and furnishing it. For simplicity's sake let's call it a wash as well, but now we're building equity! But anyway, we're mid 30's and finally in a house so let's start filling it with small humans before we're beyond at-risk age to make them happen and still be in a position to care for them before we get too old. To pop them out used to cost us near nothing, but that changed rapidly in the 90's / aughts and we've been looking at bills north of $3K over the last couple decades. This is a dynamic that's not unique to just child birth. Inflation has been a nation wide issue for 3 years, but it's been a burden on young families for 2-3 decades, which coincides with when birth rates started their downward trend. There are many...many items to cite, but child care hovers above all. Eval metrics are all over the place, but it's safe to say this has increased at least more than double the inflation rate. And it's far from the only child care related cost that has incurred such a hike. Oh, I have to save for their inflated higher ed so they don't have to repeat what we went through? Oh vey...

I could keep going, but most of those that saw this wall of text but decided to read anyway probably gave up by now. We need more in the trades that require less up front investment, but they also have shorter shelf lives as their bodies break down at a younger age. I also get that what I painted did not capture any spikes in salary, but not everyone is a specialist nor are they a manager / exec. We represent a relatively small piece of the american pie. Are the paths to raising a family limited to the affluent and irresponsible? Sure seems that way. Because the entry point to home ownership is over-burdensome and even if cleared it only gets harder with kids. It was one thing when 'harder' meant responsibilities, but now you have career wives combined with budget crippling expenses and by the time many are in a position to consider having kids they're nearing too old. And looking at our decision makers continuing to pump earnings to the wealthy while the gap widens. They saw opportunities to funnel the dollars up, did, and are bringing back the same old playbook every election cycle with no end in sight.

Are some bypassing children for their own self interests? declining religious affiliation? Of course, but it's a mistake to assume that's the root cause. It's right in front of us.

 

[Nugget]

The results of the sexual revolution, birth control and women's rights have had a massive impact on birth rates.

This is a social issue and without religious motivations; women not needing a man to take care of and provide for them and men not needing to get married to get laid means less motivation for marriage on both sides.

We’ve also made great strides in reducing teen pregnancy. Ballpark 75% reduction in last 30-40 years.

I think college graduation rates overall 60 years ago was around 10% of the country and I think we are now ballpark 40%. Women are around 60% of college graduates today - think it could still be increasing.

 

[JAA]

The impact of educated people waiting till late 30s to have two kids is massive. Daisy chain that and you eliminate three generation families entirely by 2050 for large sectors of the society. Just this alone will hurt in unimaginable ways.

Hurt?

Can you articulate this specifiically?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The impact of educated people waiting till late 30s to have two kids is massive. Daisy chain that and you eliminate three generation families entirely by 2050 for large sectors of the society. Just this alone will hurt in unimaginable ways.

Hurt?

Can you articulate this specifiically?

Watch the first few minutes of Idiocracy. Seriously. You don't have to watch more than five minutes, but you will be exposed to many of the exact same talking points that people are repeating (in earnest, not in jest) in this thread.

Now, does that mean that we're just a few short generations away from watering our crops with sports drinks? Probably not. But the general idea is the same. It's probably not a good thing, on net, for society's educated class to voluntarily stop reproducing itself.

 

[JAA]

The impact of educated people waiting till late 30s to have two kids is massive. Daisy chain that and you eliminate three generation families entirely by 2050 for large sectors of the society. Just this alone will hurt in unimaginable ways.

Hurt?

Can you articulate this specifiically?

Watch the first few minutes of Idiocracy. Seriously. You don't have to watch more than five minutes, but you will be exposed to many of the exact same talking points that people are repeating (in earnest, not in jest) in this thread.

Now, does that mean that we're just a few short generations away from watering our crops with sports drinks? Probably not. But the general idea is the same. It's probably not a good thing, on net, for society's educated class to voluntarily stop reproducing itself.

No interest in watching the movie.

When someone has a hottake like hurt unimaginably, I would like to better understand this as I have a significant imagination and thus cannot process.

 

[beer 30]

Some really good discussion here on topic I enjoy. Zeihan caught my attention when he was on Rogan last year. That got me started on this path.

I hope all those participating in this discussion see and understand, there isn't just one thing or even a couple things that you can point to that are contributing to this population decline. MAC lays out a great economic argument for why, SFDuck mentioned the changing landscape from rural farming to urban industrialization. Many have mentioned the cost associated with raising children compared to 10-20 years ago. On and on it goes and every single point is valid and a contributing factor as to why we are seeing this.

I say this with with my USA USA USA glasses on. Other areas of the world have as many but different variables contributing to their declines. The one child policy in China has doomed them for the next century. Japan will quickly rid itself of the over population they suffer from in the next decade as the -.7% growth rate continues to increase as the population ages out. Traditional European nations are dealing with unprecedented immigration over the last 5 years that are causing an already declining birth rate to drop off even more precipitously.

Now factor in political and social factors we are dancing around and you see there are a myriad of factors contributing to this decline. Is it all bad? No, the herd can be culled some and I don't think society misses a beat but when it is coming at you 100mph with little hope for reversal, well that's gonna upset the apple cart in ways we're not prepared for.

 

[Gally]

No interest in watching the movie.

Why is that? It's actually very interesting.....much more on target than I expected.

 

[JAA]

No interest in watching the movie.

Why is that? It's actually very interesting.....much more on target than I expected.

Ive read all about it and the slapstick dystopian concept is not interesting to me.

 

[opensourcebeer]

Interesting video on this topic, especially as it relates to immigration.

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

 

[Manster]

Looking forward to it because most people suck

This 1000%

 

[Harry Manback]

I'd ask to the people here who don't have kids and don't kids, if the govt said that:

1. Child care free until kindergarten (you can still opt for private care/nanny obviously) in a state/federal run daycare
2. State Colleges will be free (private schools do their own thing) via Federal Funding

Would you be more/less/same likely to have kids? Forget about how it's paid for.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Inflation has been a nation wide issue for 3 years, but it's been a burden on young families for 2-3 decades, which coincides with when birth rates started their downward trend

You've said this a couple of times in here, what is that based on? Until the past 3 years, we have largely had historically low inflation since 1990 and real wages have increased over that same time period, especially over the last decade or so.

Is that just based on childcare, which you did mention? I do think that's probably a big impact, as if you go back a few generations with women largely not in the workforce and more multigenerational living, child care cost just wasn't a thing. Cost of higher education and associated student loan balances have obviously gone way up, but while the percentage of the population with a degree has climbed steadily from just 8% in 1960 to 37.5% now it looks to be flattening out, and that leaves over 62% of the population that isn't impacted by that.

I appreciate the narrative (and the time you put into putting it together!), and it probably rings pretty true for a lot of middle-class people. But in general I'm not sure the data support a lot of it.

 

[IrishTwinkie]

People really need to read the Zeihan book referenced above. I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions. That said, he’s thought about this deeply. His conclusions are not US centric, despite what his critics say. He goes back to draw his conclusions much deeper than last year. At the least, it’s insightful and informed.

ETA: he claims, and it’s tough to dispute, that the decline in birthrate is largely based on industrialization, not govt policy. Here or abroad. Certainly some policies are making this worse, but these tend not to fall along liberal/conservative lines.

 

[beer 30]

People really need to read the Zeihan book referenced above. I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions. That said, he’s thought about this deeply. His conclusions are not US centric, despite what his critics say. He goes back to draw his conclusions much deeper than last year. At the least, it’s insightful and informed.

The book is much better but if you're not into that kinda thing and are a podcast person, listen to him on Rogan, episode 1921. He hits all the highlights with decent explanation that is covered in the book. His speaking style can be a little grating sometimes but get past it, it's worth the listen. He also has a Youtube channel where he drops 5-10 min snippets on current events which is also a good follow.

 

[fantasy stud]

I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.

I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.

I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.

Yes, cost is really the onyl reason we stopped after one kid. There is no way we could afford a second one while the first one was in daycare. By the time he went to school we were old.

 

[NutterButter]

People really need to read the Zeihan book referenced above. I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions. That said, he’s thought about this deeply. His conclusions are not US centric, despite what his critics say. He goes back to draw his conclusions much deeper than last year. At the least, it’s insightful and informed.

ETA: he claims, and it’s tough to dispute, that the decline in birthrate is largely based on industrialization, not govt policy. Here or abroad. Certainly some policies are making this worse, but these tend not to fall along liberal/conservative lines.

Sounds like it has a structure similar to one of my favorite books. Been looking for another book like that for awhile. Now I've got something to read on my vaca next week.

 

[Truebluey]

Don't know if it's been said, but the strongest correlation with fertility is education. As women become more educated, they have fewer children. It's not a surprise. And a long way from being a problem.

 

[Harry Manback]

Don't know if it's been said, but the strongest correlation with fertility is education. As women become more educated, they have fewer children. It's not a surprise. And a long way from being a problem.

Do you think if we had a mandated 6mo-1year of maternity leave that gauranteed they won;t lose their career if they choose kids they'd have more kids? If we also assisted with childcare costs so women didn't have to choose between being a stay at home mom or have a career?

Where I live if you have 2 kids in daycare you're annual cots are approacching 40k a year, and that's just for child care. That doesn't factor in doctor appointments, food costs, formula etc.

So essentially if you aren't making at least 60-65kk you're better off not working at all.