msinaisuhtlaM

[Aresen]

The economist did a projection a few years back based on the assumption that the fertility rates in the OECD countries became prevalent worldwide over the next 50 years. IIRC, they figured humanity goes extinct around 4500 CE when the last Chinese dies.

(I believe this is the article, but it's paywalled.)

[Painboy]

This makes me think that as some point in the future governments are going to start paying their people to have babies. Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable. Where else are old people going to get their social security and Medicare if there is no future generation to rob.

[Hugh Akston]

When you realize that more educated women = fewer babies, the entire conservative agenda comes into sharp focus.

[JasonL]

There’s a book.

[JasonL]

My own take on this is the tendency to project a trend into the far future never really works out because there are stabilizing factors that create shifted but non catastrophic new equilibria. It will look sufficiently different in a world with few children I expect the perceived value of the experience will shift.

[Shem]

Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable.

That's not necessarily true. We need population increases because we've spent decades not preparing for the day when the demographic pig in the python would hit the "non-productive" stage, and now our paygo lifestyle isn't sustainable with so many fewer people paying as we go. But if demographics were more or less stable across generations, you'd always have the same number of working adults supporting the same seniors and minors, so establishing an equilibrium would be orders of magnitude easier.

[Eric the .5b]

But by then, the polar melt will be complete, and there will be no ice floes.

[Aresen]

This makes me think that as some point in the future governments are going to start paying their people to have babies. Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable. Where else are old people going to get their social security and Medicare if there is no future generation to rob.

I believe several countries already are.

[Andrew]

But by then, the polar melt will be complete, and there will be no ice floes.

Now I suddenly care deeply about climate change. We can't run out of ice floes to set people adrift on.

[nicole]

This makes me think that as some point in the future governments are going to start paying their people to have babies. Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable. Where else are old people going to get their social security and Medicare if there is no future generation to rob.

We already pay people to have babies, and last year’s tax cut increased the amount.

[Painboy]

This makes me think that as some point in the future governments are going to start paying their people to have babies. Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable. Where else are old people going to get their social security and Medicare if there is no future generation to rob.

We already pay people to have babies, and last year’s tax cut increased the amount.

Obviously it's not enough.

I'm also curious if attitudes on immigration will ever lighten up or if they become even more hardened since the folks coming in are going to be the ones most likely to add to the gene pool.

[Ellie]

We already pay people to have babies, and last year’s tax cut increased the amount.

Obviously it's not enough.

I agree. I think people with four kids especially should get lots and lots of money.

[Aresen]

But by then, the polar melt will be complete, and there will be no ice floes.

Now I suddenly care deeply about climate change. We can't run out of ice floes to set people adrift on.

We can always feed the sharks instead.

[Warren]

When you realize that more educated women = fewer babies, the entire conservative agenda comes into sharp focus.

Conservative agenda? Neo, paleo, or alt right? Other?

[Mo]

This makes me think that as some point in the future governments are going to start paying their people to have babies. Without population growth the welfare state isn't sustainable. Where else are old people going to get their social security and Medicare if there is no future generation to rob.

We already pay people to have babies, and last year’s tax cut increased the amount.

Not by that much net-net because the tax law also got rid of personal exemptions for dependents.

[lunchstealer]

When you realize that more educated women = fewer babies, the entire conservative agenda comes into sharp focus.

Conservative agenda? Neo, paleo, or alt right? Other?

Mostly the last two plus So-Cons. The first was more focused on economics and foreign adventurism with just a nod to social conservatism.

[Hugh Akston]

The Global Fertility Crash

While the global average fertility rate was still above the rate of replacement—technically 2.1 children per woman—in 2017, about half of all countries had already fallen below it, up from 1 in 20 just half a century ago. For places such as the U.S. and parts of Western Europe, which historically are attractive to migrants, loosening immigration policies could make up for low birthrates. In other places, more drastic policy interventions may be called for. Most of the available options place a high burden on women, who’ll be relied upon not only to bear children but also to help fill widening gaps in the workforce.

A study last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that, for most major economies, rising productivity was a more important driver of gross domestic product growth between 2000 and 2017 on average than population growth or change in the employment rate. More than 90% of China’s potential growth in 2017 came from productivity increases, the most of any country and a few rungs ahead of the U.S. For Saudi Arabia, however, 62% came from population growth alone—and Nigeria is even more reliant than the Arab kingdom on the sheer size of its potential labor and consumer pool. France stands out for balancing increased productivity and population with higher employment, likely boosted by a healthy influx of working-age immigrants and its generous labor benefits.

[Hugh Akston]

It may go without saying that one of my favorite features of fertility panic articles is how stubbornly resistant declining birthrates are to welfare state incentives.

[Painboy]

The Global Fertility Crash

While the global average fertility rate was still above the rate of replacement—technically 2.1 children per woman—in 2017, about half of all countries had already fallen below it, up from 1 in 20 just half a century ago. For places such as the U.S. and parts of Western Europe, which historically are attractive to migrants, loosening immigration policies could make up for low birthrates. In other places, more drastic policy interventions may be called for. Most of the available options place a high burden on women, who’ll be relied upon not only to bear children but also to help fill widening gaps in the workforce.

A study last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that, for most major economies, rising productivity was a more important driver of gross domestic product growth between 2000 and 2017 on average than population growth or change in the employment rate. More than 90% of China’s potential growth in 2017 came from productivity increases, the most of any country and a few rungs ahead of the U.S. For Saudi Arabia, however, 62% came from population growth alone—and Nigeria is even more reliant than the Arab kingdom on the sheer size of its potential labor and consumer pool. France stands out for balancing increased productivity and population with higher employment, likely boosted by a healthy influx of working-age immigrants and its generous labor benefits.

It's interesting that the article never really brings up welfare and social security style benefits. Those have been paid for by the following generations since inception. The smaller the following generation is the more of that burden each individual will have to bear. The ridiculous national debt only adds to that.

I'm curious how various political groups are going to react to the changing demographics. Many of those on the left have typically discouraged adding to the population, often framing it as an environmental issue. But that will directly undercut the state funded goodies they want to hand out. They'd have to raise taxes across the board to fund them which probably won't fly with many voters. I would be very surprised if they suddenly started advocating for policies to increase the population. If they did I imagine it would take the form of "free" child care and lower immigration restrictions.

Many of those on the right have never had much care for population growth controls. The ones that do care about it are usually concerned with the "wrong" kind of people having kids. Welfare moms, immigrants, and other bugaboos that keep them up at night. Would they approve subsidies (with significant restriction of course) to have kids? While the right has only paid lip service to spending in recent years there are certain issues that make them nuts regardless of how little it actually affects the budget.

[Hugh Akston]

Turns out capitalism was the killer the whole time

If any country should be stocked with babies, it is Denmark. The country is one of the wealthiest in Europe. New parents enjoy 12 months’ paid family leave and highly subsidized day care. Women under 40 can get state-funded in vitro fertilization. But Denmark’s fertility rate, at 1.7 births per woman, is roughly on par with that of the United States. A reproductive malaise has settled over this otherwise happy land.

Decades of survey data show that people’s stated preferences have shifted toward smaller families. But they also show that in country after country, actual fertility has fallen faster than notions of ideal family size. In the United States, the gap between how many children people want and how many they have has widened to a 40-year high. In a report covering 28 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, women reported an average desired family size of 2.3 children in 2016, and men wished for 2.2. But few hit their target. Something is stopping us from creating the families we claim to want. But what?

Fucking revealed preferences, how do they work?

To worry about falling birthrates because they threaten social security systems or future work force strength is to miss the point; they are a symptom of something much more pervasive.

It seems clear that what we have come to think of as “late capitalism” — that is, not just the economic system, but all its attendant inequalities, indignities, opportunities and absurdities — has become hostile to reproduction. Around the world, economic, social and environmental conditions function as a diffuse, barely perceptible contraceptive. And yes, it is even happening in Denmark.

Lyman Stone, an economist who studies population, points to two features of modern life that correlate with low fertility: rising “workism” — a term popularized by the Atlantic writer Derek Thompson — and declining religiosity. “There is a desire for meaning-making in humans,” Mr. Stone told me. Without religion, one way people seek external validation is through work, which, when it becomes a dominant cultural value, is “inherently fertility reducing.”

I'll bet I could find thousands of factors that correlate just as well to declining birthrates.

As access to college has expanded, the value of a diploma is worth less than it once was. Competition for places in top schools has grown more brutal, and the need to invest heavily in a child from the start more imperative. For many mothers, arranging the details of a child’s education, seen as the most critical channel for upgrading his or her “quality,” has almost become a full-time job, said Dr. Greenhalgh.

This is in China only, of course.

The point is not really whether $200,000 is reasonable; it is that the very notion of attaching a dollar figure to an experience as momentous as parenthood is a sign of how much my mind-set has been warped by this system that leaves us each so very much on our own, able to avail ourselves of only what we can pay for.

The first step is renouncing the individualism celebrated by capitalism and recognizing the interdependence that is essential for long-term survival. We depend on our water supply to be clean, and our rivers depend on us not to poison them. We ask our neighbors to watch our dogs or water our plants while we’re away, and offer our help in kind. We hire strangers to look after our children or aging parents, and trust in their compassion and competence. We pay taxes and hope those we elect spend that money to keep roads safe, schools open, and national parks protected.

Reproduction is the ultimate nod to interdependence. We depend on at least two people to make us possible. We gestate inside another human, and emerge with the help of doctors or doulas or kin. We grow up in environments and communities that shape our health, safety and values. We must find concrete ways to recognize this interdependence and resolve to strengthen it.

[Kolohe]

Handsmaid's Tale, but from the left.

[Pham Nuwen]

So no one has figured out that having fewer kids is great for your bottom line and overall happiness? It's almost like parenthood is a juggle of competing wants and desires too. This is strange stuff. I'm positive these guys will get to the bottom of this without resorting to hand waving or falling back on their preconceived notions of what is right or wrong in society.

Keep me posted, hugh.

[Hugh Akston]

Putin takes on declining fertility

President Vladimir Putin has announced a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia from an average birth rate of under 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years.

Last year he promised tax breaks for bigger families.

On Wednesday he told parliament "the birth rate is falling again" before pledging state funding for new mothers.

"Maternity capital" has until now only been paid to families with at least two children.

Welfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school.

[Aresen]

Putin takes on declining fertility

President Vladimir Putin has announced a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia from an average birth rate of under 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years.

Last year he promised tax breaks for bigger families.

On Wednesday he told parliament "the birth rate is falling again" before pledging state funding for new mothers.

"Maternity capital" has until now only been paid to families with at least two children.

Welfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school.

What's the point of raising a RusRat if Putin is going to send them off to be killed somewhere?

[Shem]

Putin takes on declining fertility

President Vladimir Putin has announced a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia from an average birth rate of under 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years.

Last year he promised tax breaks for bigger families.

On Wednesday he told parliament "the birth rate is falling again" before pledging state funding for new mothers.

"Maternity capital" has until now only been paid to families with at least two children.

Welfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school.

What's the point of raising a RusRat if Putin is going to send them off to be killed somewhere?

Is that rhetorical, or do you always answer your own questions?