Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#101

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

chii wrote: post #76
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but we're seeing a measurable decline of standard of living in the west, which forces people to make sacrifices in their lifestyles. Millions of Americans are waking up to the fact that they're gonna be worse off in adulthood than their parents were and one of the easiest ways to try to maintain their standard of living is not to have children. It's not just about how many raised kids in squalor, it's about how…

> seeing a measurable decline of standard of living in the west is this really true? With the exception of the covid lockdown causing issues, i've found that i've been able to acquire all my necessary material needs, and more. It is true that my purchasing power is being clawed away via inflation, but this is counteracted by wage increases and investment returns (on average).

America has far and away the highest poverty rate of the modern world[0], there's a very strong economic divide in America.

I earn about $175K as a software engineer, which easily puts me into the top 1% of income earners in my generation. Just because life is good to me does not mean that I reflect the average lifestyle in America.

0: https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/ameri...

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#102

Post by seydor »

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

They dont seem to leave the cities. they just stop having kids. If the world wants more kids though, it should allow cities to expand

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#103

Post by mullingitover »

As much as Brave New World is discounted as being about a dystopian society, being able to automate fertility would be a game changer for humanity. We can’t depend on hoping people voluntarily make irresponsible financial decisions by having children in order to save the economy.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#104

Post by jll29 »

aylmao wrote: post #16

An economic system that depends on an ever-growing population is by definition not a sustainable economic system. Wether shortages happen this century or N centuries from now, at some point, like any population, a cap will be reached If this is dire to the economy, we are better off thinking at once about changing the economic system, not the fertility rate.

Exactly. Just a few years ago people were panicky because earth cannot support the "billions and growing" human inhabitants.

Don't forget every human conceived less on earth also means fewer cars, plane trips etc.

We need to change from a growth-oriented capitalist consumption economy to an elastic (robust against dynamically growing and shrinking) sustainable economy.

Part of this is to chain the attitudes about consumption, but part of it is also re-organizing production and supply chains after globalization in ways that ensure goods are produced as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to reduce transportation pathways.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#105

Post by balaji1 »

mertd wrote: post #37
MichaelRo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. One billion people is far more sustainable than 10.

Problem is people with heavy carbon footprint are not the people in high population regions. Therefore depopulation might not help the environment all that much.

such a simple point -- how come no one will accept this? And the rich nations with heavy footprints "wants" the rest of the world to "achieve" the same lifestyle.

There are a few big problems - waste management, particularly plastic and other toxic forever chemicals; overuse of toxic chemicals in agri that ends up in the food chain; depletion of soil and water; not enough will to tackle problems sustainably.

So a few people can consume more and more -- exacerbated by marketing ads and infinite profit motives.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#106

Post by aylmao »

klipt wrote: post #34
lynx23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my case, I moved to a city for more infrastructure, public transport and my job. I had absolutely no plans to raise kids there. In fact, most people I know move out of the city center to the suburbs once they have kids. I dont follow your analysis why less childbirth would automatically lead to deserted cities.

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak.

- 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia.

- 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan.

Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a local minima in 2008. It has wobbled up and down, but stayed close to 143m for almost 20 years [1].

This is how populations usually work; they level off and oscillate around their carrying capacity. It's often studied in biology [2].

Shaving off 3% of the population of a country doesn't lead to deserted cities any more than other factors do. Natural resource depletion and economic factors are and will most definitely keep being bigger worries for cities (ie, droughts leading to water shortages, big employers moving out, etc).

[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=R...

[2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c6733622308...

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#107

Post by mostlyreadertom »

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

One of the issues you mentioned is inherent to city living itself. Although we have been led to believe that city living is more efficient, let's examine whether this perception holds true. The cost of constructing single-family homes in non-dense areas is significantly lower, averaging around $150 per square foot. In contrast, high-rise buildings can cost five to ten times more, with an average of $800 to $1500 per net rentable square foot. Infrastructure costs, including roads and utilities, typically range from $30 to $60 per square foot for a 1500 square foot area, with sewer systems being the most expensive component. Yes, you don’t get paved road in rural. But gravel road is just fine there.

Considering these figures, it becomes evident that city living cannot be deemed cheaper based solely on the cost per square foot.

However, the lower cost of construction in non-dense areas doesn’t translate to ample of low cost housing because it has its own zoning and regulation that prohibit from happening.

Drawing from my personal experience as a software engineer turned builder/developer, these observations are rooted in real projects and data.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#108

Post by amrocha »

Telemakhos wrote: post #65
whaleofatw2022 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the likely reality is that the ones who can afford to continue reproducing will also continue to consume an unfair amount of resources.

I think the answer is the opposite. Consumption of resources is proportional to standard of living: it takes resources to make the most modern lifestyle available. The demographic collapse, however, is evident in highly industrialized societies like Korea, while backwards regions with a low standard of living still have high birthrates. Subsaharan Africa, for example, consumes less than Korea per capita but has a hig…

>Consumption of resources is proportional to standard of living

It's not and you know this. It's at best correlated. The resources have to be used effectively, and right now they're definitely not. My quality of life does not go up because using up more resources instead of living sustainably.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#109

Post by xeromal »

robbomacrae wrote: post #90
xeromal wrote: post #38

Every comment I read about this is how low housing, low income, no time, etc is the cause of a global fertility drop, but I don't buy. Humans have been having boatloads of kids in horrible horrible times and they haven't been stopped until now.

Counter point... or more of a theory.. everyone who wants to have a child wants to be as good as, or a better parent than their own, and want to provide for their children's childhood as good as, or better than their own. I don't have references to back this up but it seems to be the case with most parents or aspiring parents I talk to. In the western world we compare ourselves to our parents who bought their 1st hou…

I think it's a valid argument, but I don't think it's particularly strong. Humans are driven to have children and have for our entire history.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#110

Post by [deleted] »

klipt wrote: post #34
lynx23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my case, I moved to a city for more infrastructure, public transport and my job. I had absolutely no plans to raise kids there. In fact, most people I know move out of the city center to the suburbs once they have kids. I dont follow your analysis why less childbirth would automatically lead to deserted cities.

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN