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

[dgreen]

So does our massive abortion rate have anything to do with this?

Massive rate? We're like ranked 109 out of 150 something. Not at all massive.

Rate as in per capita? Sure I guess, but we are the 3rd largest country in the world.

How about raw numbers. We abort between 500k-1million per year and have for about 50 years. That's 25-50 million fewer people born.

It's not nothing.

ETA: and some multiplier effect as they reach childbearing ages would drive that number even higher.

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

the replacement rate disagrees with you.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[Jayrod]

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

This is an unsubstantiated assumption. I'll agree it isn't a zero number, but I think you may be overestimating the %. Since your best evidence would likely be anecdotal, I can rebut that with the fact that I know 3 different people (2 women, 1 man) who had a kid and got married young, only to get divorced and start over with a 2nd spouse and have multiple children with the new spouse. The first born child from the 1st marriage seemed to have little to no effect on the decision to have more kids later. I'm sure it has happened where a person had a baby young and decided to have fewer or no kids later in life. But there are also likely some people who had abortions and never had any kids so they would have gone from zero to one.

Again this is all pure speculation but to continually disregard a number that could have risen our current population by 5-10% seems like a very illogical thing to ignore when talking about the decline in population.

 

[Jayrod]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

 

[quickhands]

So does our massive abortion rate have anything to do with this?

Massive rate? We're like ranked 109 out of 150 something. Not at all massive.

Rate as in per capita? Sure I guess, but we are the 3rd largest country in the world.

How about raw numbers. We abort between 500k-1million per year and have for about 50 years. That's 25-50 million fewer people born.

It's not nothing.

ETA: and some multiplier effect as they reach childbearing ages would drive that number even higher.

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

the replacement rate disagrees with you.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

we aren't replacing ourselves.

 

[dgreen]

So does our massive abortion rate have anything to do with this?

Massive rate? We're like ranked 109 out of 150 something. Not at all massive.

Rate as in per capita? Sure I guess, but we are the 3rd largest country in the world.

How about raw numbers. We abort between 500k-1million per year and have for about 50 years. That's 25-50 million fewer people born.

It's not nothing.

ETA: and some multiplier effect as they reach childbearing ages would drive that number even higher.

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

the replacement rate disagrees with you.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

we aren't replacing ourselves.

Got it. I agree with that, but I'm just not sure abortion is a reason for that. I think there's just a preference by people to have less kids.

 

[dutch]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns.

I see abortion as the means to the ends, ie, I don't want (more)kids therefore abort. Taking the option of abortion away doesn't negate the desire for less kids, it changes the means for that outcome to contraception or morning after pill or medical sterilization procedure.

 

[Chris B.]

My plan was to have 0 children. I ended up with 1 so my wife and I will not be fully replaced. I think the world needs fewer people anyway so hopefully my kid will benefit from a decline.

 

[Harry Manback]

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

This is an unsubstantiated assumption. I'll agree it isn't a zero number, but I think you may be overestimating the %. Since your best evidence would likely be anecdotal, I can rebut that with the fact that I know 3 different people (2 women, 1 man) who had a kid and got married young, only to get divorced and start over with a 2nd spouse and have multiple children with the new spouse. The first born child from the 1st marriage seemed to have little to no effect on the decision to have more kids later. I'm sure it has happened where a person had a baby young and decided to have fewer or no kids later in life. But there are also likely some people who had abortions and never had any kids so they would have gone from zero to one.

Again this is all pure speculation but to continually disregard a number that could have risen our current population by 5-10% seems like a very illogical thing to ignore when talking about the decline in population.

You called it a "massive rate". Relative to what? Other countries? Nope. It's not high relative to other countries.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're replying to as you cut out my quote.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So does our massive abortion rate have anything to do with this?

Massive rate? We're like ranked 109 out of 150 something. Not at all massive.

Rate as in per capita? Sure I guess, but we are the 3rd largest country in the world.

How about raw numbers. We abort between 500k-1million per year and have for about 50 years. That's 25-50 million fewer people born.

It's not nothing.

ETA: and some multiplier effect as they reach childbearing ages would drive that number even higher.

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

the replacement rate disagrees with you.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

we aren't replacing ourselves.

Got it. I agree with that, but I'm just not sure abortion is a reason for that. I think there's just a preference by people to have less kids.

We know that abortion is probably a non-factor because we see the exact same thing in other countries with a variety of different laws regarding abortion.

 

[Harry Manback]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

What good do unwanted children provide? They then end up in foster homes and a good chunk are never adopted. Is this ideal?

 

[SFBayDuck]

I don't know when I'll have the time to give you a researched answer, but put yourself in the shoes of a gen x and think about those 2 items you mentioned - higher ed and childcare. Birth rates had been in decline while the higher ed markets (and housing) heated up, but there's a very clear reason the demo cliff is hitting higher ed next yr- the great recession. Think about how the timing of these events impacted those in each generation.

Gen x navigated inflated higher ed then just when they got the house- Charlie Brown and the football. Your housing price just tanked and who knows about your job, whether you still have it or the promotion you'd been working for disappeared. You don't have a nest egg to fall back on since you spent a disproportionate amount of dollars on education / down payment and now you have those bills ahead? Looks like we're not having kids, or at least less of them.

We claim to covet an educated populace, but these barriers and their timing ran counter to those goals then we didn't do anything about it.

Oh that's easy, because I am in those shoes! I was born right in the middle of the '65-'80 Gen X range. But I would argue that the skyrocketing higher ed costs came after our generation was through and has hit Millennials and Gen Z right in the face - I think I paid $3,000 a year for school in the early '90s, equivalent to about $6,200 today. But I paid my way through the last two years of school so did graduate with some student loan and credit card debt, which kept me from saving/investing in my 20s but I got by. But I wouldn't call it crippling, despite all the $29 late fees I paid on that credit card debt.

At 31 I had a kid, and at 32 I bought a condo. But there was no down payment needed - it was the heyday of 5/1 interest-only ARM loans that took 15 minutes to sign up for. Of course 5 years and 1 day later my condo was worth $250K less than the loan we had on it and I couldn't afford the adjusted payment. And oh yeah, on top of losing the condo I did lose a job during the GFC.

I did pay exorbitant daycare costs from 10 months old until she was 5 and went to kindergarten.

So yeah, the start of this century was pretty financially rough for a lot of our generation, and it sure was for me. But all that said, our decision to not have a second kid wasn't financial at all.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

The counterpoint is if a factor of how a society is ordered causes that society to eventually collapse can it be considered good?

Which is a massive assumption.

People shouldn't be taking these theories as facts, if they are going to use them to try and figure out a way to make women want to have babies.

To a point I will grant you this point, especially in regard to America's birth rate. But certainly, in countries like Japan, China, and South Korea the numbers and the trends are set, and they will undeniably experience significant population loss in the rest of this century. There is absolutely nothing that will prevent it for at least a generation. At its core it is simple mathematics and human behavior that has been entrenched for 30+ years in those countries and every country entering this Urbanization and Industrial society is experiencing it at different stages and rates, but it is an observable fact at this point with no existing examples of a country not experiencing it.

 

[MAC_32]

I don't know when I'll have the time to give you a researched answer, but put yourself in the shoes of a gen x and think about those 2 items you mentioned - higher ed and childcare. Birth rates had been in decline while the higher ed markets (and housing) heated up, but there's a very clear reason the demo cliff is hitting higher ed next yr- the great recession. Think about how the timing of these events impacted those in each generation.

Gen x navigated inflated higher ed then just when they got the house- Charlie Brown and the football. Your housing price just tanked and who knows about your job, whether you still have it or the promotion you'd been working for disappeared. You don't have a nest egg to fall back on since you spent a disproportionate amount of dollars on education / down payment and now you have those bills ahead? Looks like we're not having kids, or at least less of them.

We claim to covet an educated populace, but these barriers and their timing ran counter to those goals then we didn't do anything about it.

Oh that's easy, because I am in those shoes! I was born right in the middle of the '65-'80 Gen X range. But I would argue that the skyrocketing higher ed costs came after our generation was through and has hit Millennials and Gen Z right in the face - I think I paid $3,000 a year for school in the early '90s, equivalent to about $6,200 today. But I paid my way through the last two years of school so did graduate with some student loan and credit card debt, which kept me from saving/investing in my 20s but I got by. But I wouldn't call it crippling, despite all the $29 late fees I paid on that credit card debt.

At 31 I had a kid, and at 32 I bought a condo. But there was no down payment needed - it was the heyday of 5/1 interest-only ARM loans that took 15 minutes to sign up for. Of course 5 years and 1 day later my condo was worth $250K less than the loan we had on it and I couldn't afford the adjusted payment. And oh yeah, on top of losing the condo I did lose a job during the GFC.

I did pay exorbitant daycare costs from 10 months old until she was 5 and went to kindergarten.

So yeah, the start of this century was pretty financially rough for a lot of our generation, and it sure was for me. But all that said, our decision to not have a second kid wasn't financial at all.

Right, these market impacts accelerated in your generation. Mid-older gen x'ers got hit a lot harder than younger then it sustained into millenials. That's why the demo cliff is hitting higher ed in the next year or 2.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

No interest in watching the movie.

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

It's great as social commentary, but, except for the first 5-10 minutes, terrible as a movie.

 

[AAABatteries]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

Seems like you are making one big assumption and that is that some people would have still had other kids after their abortion if magically their abortion didn’t happen. No clue how that changes the math.

The above is kind of confusing so let me give a tangentially relevant example. My wife had a miscarriage which we could put in to the same category as an abortion for math purposes. We had 5 pregnancies but only four kids. If that miscarriage hadn’t happened we would still only have 4 kids as we would have prevented the 5th.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

The counterpoint is if a factor of how a society is ordered causes that society to eventually collapse can it be considered good?

Which is a massive assumption.

People shouldn't be taking these theories as facts, if they are going to use them to try and figure out a way to make women want to have babies.

That predisposes that the population decline is a bad thing, which I am not ready to agree with.

The end result maybe better if there is some population number out there that finds a way to sustain itself but the decline is going to a rough adjustment.

 

[Harry Manback]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

Seems like you are making one big assumption and that is that some people would have still had other kids after their abortion if magically their abortion didn’t happen. No clue how that changes the math.

The above is kind of confusing so let me give a tangentially relevant example. My wife had a miscarriage which we could put in to the same category as an abortion for math purposes. We had 5 pregnancies but only four kids. If that miscarriage hadn’t happened we would still only have 4 kids as we would have prevented the 5th.

I think you mean would not have? But this is valid.

Say a couple has an abortion because they aren't ready for kids, they then have a child 2 years later. They ended up with 1 child. The abortion didn't impact their total children if their goal was 1 child all along.

 

[dkp993]

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.

I can’t imagine money factoring into my decision to have kids.*

* to be clear, I’m not saying I can’t see how it would be for someone, just speaking personally.

 

[Anarchy99]

Haven’t read through the thread, but last I saw any data, the world’s population was increasing by 200K+ people per day, potentially reaching 10 billion people in the next 25 to 75 years by some projections. When / why / how is the population supposed to decline? I get that people aren’t having as many kids in more developed countries, but elsewhere that hasn’t been the case.

 

[beer 30]

I can’t imagine money factoring into my decision to have kids.*

* to be clear, I’m not saying I can’t see how it would be for someone, just speaking personally.

We tried that with our first, "we need to have X done, have X in the bank, etc". Quickly realized that if we were going to have kids on our timeline then that wasn't in the cards. If you wait until you think you'll have enough money for a child, you'll never have a child.

Haven’t read through the thread, but last I saw any data, the world’s population was increasing by 200K+ people per day, potentially reaching 10 billion people in the next 25 to 75 years by some projections. When / why / how is the population supposed to decline? I get that people aren’t having as many kids in more developed countries, but elsewhere that hasn’t been the case.

It's not so much the world as certain advanced countries within the world that are concerning. The US is essentially flat right now but edging toward decline. Many Asian countries are wrong end of the equation with little hope of steering the ship away from the cliff. Europe is in decline but supplanting with immigration so the individual nationalities will quickly become "mutt".

 

[Harry Manback]

I can’t imagine money factoring into my decision to have kids.*

* to be clear, I’m not saying I can’t see how it would be for someone, just speaking personally.

We tried that with our first, "we need to have X done, have X in the bank, etc". Quickly realized that if we were going to have kids on our timeline then that wasn't in the cards. If you wait until you think you'll have enough money for a child, you'll never have a child.

Haven’t read through the thread, but last I saw any data, the world’s population was increasing by 200K+ people per day, potentially reaching 10 billion people in the next 25 to 75 years by some projections. When / why / how is the population supposed to decline? I get that people aren’t having as many kids in more developed countries, but elsewhere that hasn’t been the case.

It's not so much the world as certain advanced countries within the world that are concerning. The US is essentially flat right now but edging toward decline. Many Asian countries are wrong end of the equation with little hope of steering the ship away from the cliff. Europe is in decline but supplanting with immigration so the individual nationalities will quickly become "mutt".

I mean, sometimes it's not explicitly money. Sometimes it's:

We live in a crapy neighborhood and I don't want a kid here but can't afford to move yet

or

We only have 2 bedrooms and we need a 3rd so my wife can WFH and the baby has a room so we have to save up to buy a bigger house.

 

[matttyl]

Haven’t read through the thread, but last I saw any data, the world’s population was increasing by 200K+ people per day, potentially reaching 10 billion people in the next 25 to 75 years by some projections. When / why / how is the population supposed to decline? I get that people aren’t having as many kids in more developed countries, but elsewhere that hasn’t been the case.

I was thinking the same thing. It certainly doesnt project to be the case here in the US - currently we’re at 342M and the CBO projects that to be 383 in 2054. Census.gov says we’re heading towards a high of 370M in 2080 before a slight dip in 2100 - 76 years from now (though still more than we have now).

 

[matttyl]

The UN is still projecting the global population to top 10B (up 2B from today) by 2100.

 

[The Z Machine]

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.

More education is good, but decreased fertility really is a problem. Sometimes otherwise-good things have negative side effects. In real life, you can't just wish away tradeoffs.

Just to pick one random example -- nothing dramatic like global trade breaking down -- consider Social Security. That program is built on the idea that today's workers pay for current retiree's benefits. (I assume everybody in this thread understands that "your" Social Security contributions were spent years ago and are not being held in some special account for you). Lower fertility means we're not replacing workers as they retire, so the math gets thrown out of whack. We have no choice but to either cut benefits, raise taxes, or run a deficit, or some combination thereof. That sucks, and it is a genuinely difficult problem to solve.

We could also bring in more workers via immigration.

 

[Truebluey]

I commented on this thread earlier, but it's funny to read through it now and see 17 different arguments going on at once.

 

[matttyl]

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.

More education is good, but decreased fertility really is a problem. Sometimes otherwise-good things have negative side effects. In real life, you can't just wish away tradeoffs.

Just to pick one random example -- nothing dramatic like global trade breaking down -- consider Social Security. That program is built on the idea that today's workers pay for current retiree's benefits. (I assume everybody in this thread understands that "your" Social Security contributions were spent years ago and are not being held in some special account for you). Lower fertility means we're not replacing workers as they retire, so the math gets thrown out of whack. We have no choice but to either cut benefits, raise taxes, or run a deficit, or some combination thereof. That sucks, and it is a genuinely difficult problem to solve.

We could also bring in more workers via immigration.

We do. 80+% of our recent population growth has been due to immigration, not birth rates.

 

[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

but there is a lot of evidence that women are not as fulfilled as men are with a long-term high income high stress career. It seems a mid-level with mid income high stress career is even less fulfilling for women.

Sorry, but this is not supported by evidence. I'm an academic applied psychologist and have colleagues who specialize in this field. Your argument has been posited by some (mainly as a political argument) but there is no research supporting it. Also, if you take any mainstream theory of well being, there is no reasonable explanation of how such an effect could occur. What would be the causative hypothesis?

 

[massraider]

To a point I will grant you this point, especially in regard to America's birth rate. But certainly, in countries like Japan, China, and South Korea the numbers and the trends are set, and they will undeniably experience significant population loss in the rest of this century. There is absolutely nothing that will prevent it for at least a generation. At its core it is simple mathematics and human behavior that has been entrenched for 30+ years in those countries and every country entering this Urbanization and Industrial society is experiencing it at different stages and rates, but it is an observable fact at this point with no existing examples of a country not experiencing it.

I am not arguing the birth rate is declining.

I am arguing the massive supposition that a declining birth rate leads to the collapse of a society. That it won't correct from some unforseen situation. That it's even a problem.

Maybe incomes are suddenly balanced by some future event, and a school bus driver, a teacher, a machine shop worker, a mechanic, and a truck driver can all support a family of four, and I imagine that birth rate thing will sort itself out right quick.

 

[Nugget]

Haven’t read through the thread, but last I saw any data, the world’s population was increasing by 200K+ people per day, potentially reaching 10 billion people in the next 25 to 75 years by some projections. When / why / how is the population supposed to decline? I get that people aren’t having as many kids in more developed countries, but elsewhere that hasn’t been the case.

I was thinking the same thing. It certainly doesnt project to be the case here in the US - currently we’re at 342M and the CBO projects that to be 383 in 2054. Census.gov says we’re heading towards a high of 370M in 2080 before a slight dip in 2100 - 76 years from now (though still more than we have now).

Projections based on various immigration levels

The Census Bureau’s new nationwide population projections allow for an assessment of immigration’s role for the future of the U.S. population. More so than the previously released 2017-based projections, the new data shows generally lower future population growth due to updated assumptions of fertility, mortality, and immigration from abroad. And they make even more apparent the strong role immigration will play in contributing to the future growth or decline of the population. This is because the projections—looking at the period from 2022 to 2100—are presented under four different immigration scenarios, ranging from zero immigration to high immigration.

 

[AAABatteries]

I commented on this thread earlier, but it's funny to read through it now and see 17 different arguments going on at once.

Yeah, I’m having trouble following the general argument but then again I’m a moron.

Maybe I shouldn’t have had four kids after all.

 

[SFBayDuck]

I commented on this thread earlier, but it's funny to read through it now and see 17 different arguments going on at once.

Yeah, I’m having trouble following the general argument but then again I’m a moron.

Maybe I shouldn’t have had four kids after all.

We're talking about things like inflation, abortion, and immigration in a thread in the FFA. What could go wrong?
(I kid, I kid, everyone so far is keeping politics out of it)

 

[dkp993]

I commented on this thread earlier, but it's funny to read through it now and see 17 different arguments going on at once.

Yeah, I’m having trouble following the general argument but then again I’m a moron.

Maybe I shouldn’t have had four kids after all.

We're talking about things like inflation, abortion, and immigration in a thread in the FFA. What could go wrong?
(I kid, I kid, everyone so far is keeping politics out of it)

Add in we have another active thread on Religion. The floor here is covered in eggshells.
Well done everyone.*


*so far

 

[quickhands]

So does our massive abortion rate have anything to do with this?

Massive rate? We're like ranked 109 out of 150 something. Not at all massive.

Rate as in per capita? Sure I guess, but we are the 3rd largest country in the world.

How about raw numbers. We abort between 500k-1million per year and have for about 50 years. That's 25-50 million fewer people born.

It's not nothing.

ETA: and some multiplier effect as they reach childbearing ages would drive that number even higher.

I doubt it changes the total population. Yes, that's 25-50 million individuals who aren't here today, but those individuals were probably replaced (population-wise) by different individuals born a few years later. In other words, we have a lot of resources available to us to control how many kids we have. People generally know how many they want and that's how many they have.

the replacement rate disagrees with you.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

we aren't replacing ourselves.

Got it. I agree with that, but I'm just not sure abortion is a reason for that. I think there's just a preference by people to have less kids.

true...kids on a farm are a labor force. kids in a city are expensive.

 

[beer 30]

Relevant, not sure to which argument(s) but relevant

The U.S. Median Income Rose to $80,610, but Home Values Are Also Soaring—and It's Not Always Cheaper To Rent

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income rose to $80,610 in 2023, essentially the same as it was at its pre-pandemic peak.

www.realtor.com

 

[MAC_32]

I can’t imagine money factoring into my decision to have kids.*

* to be clear, I’m not saying I can’t see how it would be for someone, just speaking personally.

We tried that with our first, "we need to have X done, have X in the bank, etc". Quickly realized that if we were going to have kids on our timeline then that wasn't in the cards. If you wait until you think you'll have enough money then you'll never have kids.

We made the fiscally irresponsible decision to not wait. There were some terrifying moments and 2-3 yr forecasts we couldn't afford, but we luckily had well timed promotions mixed in with some 70 hour weeks managing 3+ jobs. Wouldn't say we're on easy street now, but for the first time in 15 years (oldest is 14) our house is operating with a surplus.

 

[parasaurolophus]

People frequently bring up japan, but i dont see how americans of all people can think population decline in Japan is anything but necessary.

It is like taking California and also dumping the populations of texas, new york, florida, and arizona in it.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

Where are you getting that 20% figure? Abortion rates have been declining for a while

 

[Oracle]

People frequently bring up japan, but i dont see how americans of all people can think population decline in Japan is anything but necessary.

It is like taking California and also dumping the populations of texas, new york, florida, and arizona in it.

Why is a population decline necessary in Japan? I understand why the population decline in Japan is happening, but am unsure why it’s necessary.

 

[dkp993]

People frequently bring up japan, but i dont see how americans of all people can think population decline in Japan is anything but necessary.

It is like taking California and also dumping the populations of texas, new york, florida, and arizona in it.

As a life long Californian, there would still be plenty of space. Cali is HUGE and mostly empty.


*but I do understand the point you’re making.

 

[IrishTwinkie]

Here are some interesting graphs.

Population Pyramids of the World from 1950 to 2100

Japan - 2050

www.populationpyramid.net

Clicking around will get you birth rates.

Another map showing world wide birth rates.

fertility rate map - Google Search

(In general US is not suffering as badly as some due to immigration.)

 

[Terminalxylem]

The counterpoint is if a factor of how a society is ordered causes that society to eventually collapse can it be considered good?

Which is a massive assumption.

People shouldn't be taking these theories as facts, if they are going to use them to try and figure out a way to make women want to have babies.

That predisposes that the population decline is a bad thing, which I am not ready to agree with.

Agreed. More importantly, world population is still on the upswing, and this should continue for at least the next century or so. A graph

 

[TennesseeJed]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns. I'd guess it is even higher, but I'm trying to stay conservative.

Based on my sheer back of the napkin educated guesswork, I believe our population has been conservatively shorted at least 20 million net people through abortions to date since legalization in the early 70's. That is 6% of our current total US population. I'm sure we could dive into it deeper, but I don't think I'm being ridiculous to say that is a decent estimate.

So back to my entire initial point, it is a significant factor in what we are talking about.

Where are you getting that 20% figure? Abortion rates have been declining for a while

This is correct. CDC reports that there are about 195 abortions per 1000 live births - which erroneously looks like ~20%, but that math actually works out to a little over 16% of pregnancies were aborted.

But, that is not the end of the picture, in addition to live births, approximately 15% of pregnancies resulted in a miscarriage. Thus, the percentage of aborted pregnancies is really around 13% of total pregnancies. And, we don’t know how many were health related.

The truth is many more babies are not born as a result of traditional birth control methods - such that the comparison to abortions is trivial (and political).

 

[quickhands]

Also, to someone else’s earlier point, those kids may have been prevented via birth control if available, not to mention how many of the abortions may have been due to unviability.

I’m not sure more unwanted children is what our population needs.

Seems nonsensical to argue that pregnancies that could have been avoided and weren't don't count. It is fact and happened, so acting like it didn't makes zero sense.

And the number of abortions due to unviability isn't zero, but fetal/infant mortality rates are around 5-8%. We aborted around 20% of all pregnancies in 2020. That leaves at least half of all abortions as having nothing to do with health concerns.

I see abortion as the means to the ends, ie, I don't want (more)kids therefore abort. Taking the option of abortion away doesn't negate the desire for less kids, it changes the means for that outcome to contraception or morning after pill or medical sterilization procedure.

so you want to give woman to kill.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As a life long Californian, there would still be plenty of space. Cali is HUGE and mostly empty.

But what would they drink?

 

[TennesseeJed]

As a life long Californian, there would still be plenty of space. Cali is HUGE and mostly empty.

But what would they drink?

Some kind of smoothie...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As a life long Californian, there would still be plenty of space. Cali is HUGE and mostly empty.

But what would they drink?

Some kind of smoothie...

 

[Scoresman]

People need to keep having kids because my childless wife and I will need people to run the resorts, hotels, and amenities we plan to continue spending our money on instead of kids.

 

[dkp993]

As a life long Californian, there would still be plenty of space. Cali is HUGE and mostly empty.

But what would they drink?

More Colorado water, just like now. Lol

 

[beer 30]

Greece is having all the fun this decade

 

[The Z Machine]

Greece is having all the fun this decade

Those photos make it look really nice