The world might run out of people • Hacker News Board

Re: The world might run out of people

#121

Post by iguy » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

misja wrote: post #114

rainworld wrote: post #71

Quoting Spandrell: At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intell…

Even though intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate, it is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring. The net effect is not clear. Apart from that, when you differentiate between men and women, the correlations turn out to be different: while women still have a negative correlation, for men the correlation between IQ and fertility rate turns positive. See for instance https://en.wikipedi…

Right, but that positive slope is only for within-country variation.

Re: The world might run out of people

#122

Post by sevensor » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #109

polskibus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

> Inflation will eat most of your savings What? This is why investment advice for retirement generally revolves around allocation into stocks and bonds while leaving only an emergency fund plus regular expenses in more liquid assets like savings accounts. Inflation will only eat your savings if you fail to invest. If you want to talk about risk, well, inflation is why a total failure to accept risk is extremely risky…

And you expect your investments to continue to increase in value with a shrinking population?

Re: The world might run out of people

#123

Post by watwut » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #109

polskibus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

> Inflation will eat most of your savings What? This is why investment advice for retirement generally revolves around allocation into stocks and bonds while leaving only an emergency fund plus regular expenses in more liquid assets like savings accounts. Inflation will only eat your savings if you fail to invest. If you want to talk about risk, well, inflation is why a total failure to accept risk is extremely risky…

I think that he is talking about average person and you have rich classes in mind. Most people dont have money to invest in bonds.

Re: The world might run out of people

#124

Post by pixl97 » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

itronitron wrote: post #115

Robotbeat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. there are lots of stupid, impulsive religious zealots with quiverfuls. But also a lot of wonderful, loving religious folks with quiverfuls. I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered u…

>> it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. I doubt that very much, that has not been my experience, my colleagues, or my relatives. In fact, I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families.

> I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families.

That would be pretty silly then. Most successful religions have two things, both of them based on growth. One is a means to capture people not in their religion by conversion. The other is by codifying good parenting and breeding habits. The biblical old testament is rife with teachings like this for example.

Population fade with success is not a modern problem, it is an ancient one. In the past if you didn't have a large enough population you were at risk of attack by stronger nations.

Re: The world might run out of people

#125

Post by polskibus » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #109

polskibus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

> Inflation will eat most of your savings What? This is why investment advice for retirement generally revolves around allocation into stocks and bonds while leaving only an emergency fund plus regular expenses in more liquid assets like savings accounts. Inflation will only eat your savings if you fail to invest. If you want to talk about risk, well, inflation is why a total failure to accept risk is extremely risky…

Sure, this advice seems ok in current economic setting, where workforce size is replenished by newer generations.

Now think about what would happen if there are a lot of old retired people but the number of people willing to work for them is 50% of what is required, in most branches of the economy.

Money will start chasing the workers, and they pay will sky rocket. It's more like SV skyrocketing housing prices and total compensation, bit wider in scope.

Re: The world might run out of people

#126

Post by pixl97 » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #38

> “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.” I'll give you very long odds against.

Well, if we change 'never ends' to 'until the earth is uninhabitable by solar irradiance', then is premis can be completely true.

For example if we have 10 billion people and reduced the total population by 2 every year, that would give us 5 billion years, which is way after the sun has gone red giant.

Re: The world might run out of people

#127

Post by foolsgold » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

I was expecting a link to the National Inquirer, and not Wired.

Utter nonsense

Re: The world might run out of people

#128

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #102

magduf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't fully explain why humans don't want to have a lot of kids. Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. (For instance, as a single guy, I'm far more likely to be interested in dating a single mother with girls than one with boys; little boys are just too destructive and disobedient.) Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to. I…

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

From a purely economic standpoint, treating kids like a retirement investment seems absurdly risky compared to the alternative. According to this link [1] the average cost of raising a middle class child to age 18 is $233,610. Plus the average cost of a 4 year out of state university [2] $36,420 equals $270,030. That’s $12,274 a year for 22 years. Let’s say instead you put that into a pre tax IRA earning 6%. At the end of those 22 years your balance is $532,597. Let that grow for another 10 years and you’re at $852,155. Assume 15% effective tax rate at retirement you have $724,331 after tax.

Is your (now 32 year old) kid going to have the means to provide you that much assistance in your retirement?

1: http://money.com/money/4629700/child-raising-cost-department...

2: https://www.collegeraptor.com/find-colleges/articles/afforda...

Re: The world might run out of people

#129

Post by matthewdgreen » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #53

This is indeed the leading theory about where the world will be heading over the next couple of decades. But I think the answer really depends on the culture of subpopulations. In the USA for example, republican ruled states have more babies than democrat ruled states [1]. Or in israel, the fertility rate of the orthodox haredi minority is very high with 6.9 children per woman in 2017 (children not childbirths) compa…

One might point out that orthodox-religious and Republican children are a major source of liberals.

Re: The world might run out of people

#130

Post by iguy » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #109

polskibus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

> Inflation will eat most of your savings What? This is why investment advice for retirement generally revolves around allocation into stocks and bonds while leaving only an emergency fund plus regular expenses in more liquid assets like savings accounts. Inflation will only eat your savings if you fail to invest. If you want to talk about risk, well, inflation is why a total failure to accept risk is extremely risky…

Every service you buy with your savings has to be provided by people working at that time. More savings competing for fewer workers will cause inflation until your savings are reduced to match.

To take the extreme example, if everyone tried to save up and then take a sabbatical year in 2025, they would all find that their money became almost worthless -- they could buy capital goods (made before) but nothing else.

Before Paul Krugman metamorphozed into a political hack, he wrote some quite solid stuff about economics. His famous baby-sitting co-op [1] runs into this problem: Everyone wishes to earn tickets on weekdays / winter and spend them on weekends / summer, but this is impossible:

[1] http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html