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

141–150 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#141

Post by tsunagatta »

chii wrote: post #87
aylmao wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO calling it "population collapse" and a "train wreck" is the wrong way to describe it. This isn't so much a collapse, it's a leveling-off. A train isn't supposed to wreck, but populations are supposed to reach a maxima. The fact historical short-sightedness meant we didn't plan for it properly is an issue. The problem here should be framed around our economic system though, not fertility rates.

> populations are supposed to reach a maxima. This is an assumption. In nature, a population reaches a maxima but it's a survivorship bias metric. Populations that _didn't_ level off struggled to find the now scarce food, and died off too fast to re-populate, or some other reason died off. Humans are the only species so far to be able to exploit more resources as population grew, and have the technology to prevent su…

> No natural force should be able to kill off humans or their expansion.

I will believe this once a way is found to reverse entropy.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#142

Post by JumpCrisscross »

petre wrote: post #85
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> House prices, inflation, traffic…food scarcity NIMBYism, combination of bad monetary policy and a supply shock, and bad urban planning. Tokyo has cheaper homes and less traffic than cities with a fraction of the population in America.

Tokyo also has earthquakes. Real estate is not an asset that appreciates in value in Japan, because it's eventually damaged or destroyed during an earthquake.

> Real estate is not an asset that appreciates in value in Japan, because it's eventually damaged or destroyed during an earthquake

This has nothing to do with it. Several other real estate markets are seismically active and dissimilar. Japan regularly razed and builds. That, along with limited immigration and a unique monetary policy, keeps housing prices down or depreciating.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#143

Post by kitsunesoba »

aylmao wrote: post #52
COGlory wrote: post #32

I've been wondering a lot about fertility lately. Almost every married woman that I know of my age group is seemingly unable to have children, despite, in most cases, wanting to. This is often accompanied by PCOS, thyroid problems, or other strange but undiagnosed illnesses. The one exception to this seems to be those of Italian American vintage. Having grown up in Rhode Island I know quite a lot of Italian Americans…

Beyond pollutants, which isn't at all far-fetched to think is affecting fertility rates, there's also just life. I know plenty of people who want to have kids, but there's a lot of reasons to wait before having them. The later one waits, the harder (physically) it is to have kids.

The most common one I imagine is finances.

I think there's a lot of people who see some level of stability and financial padding on the horizon, far away but within reach given a few years. Because this group sees that glimmer, they chase it and hold off on having kids in hopes of reducing the chances of ending up in dire straits thanks to the expenses that come building a family.

The argument against this is that impoverished areas have higher birth rates, and that's probably because they don't see the glimmer. These people are more likely to have resigned themselves to their fate of being poor and kids either don't change that equation or even add value (as they can serve as farmhands and such).

If we rewind several decades to when long-term financial stability wasn't so difficult to achieve, the birth rate wasn't an issue. People achieved stability when young and started having kids. If we want to bring the birthrate back up, I think it's going to be necessary to make that possible again.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#144

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #115
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> In this table, poverty is being measured as the percent of the population falling below one half of a particular country’s median household income. That is a measure of income inequality... not poverty. Here is a measure of inflation adjusted household income over time for to address the original point[1]. People are not getting poorer [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

> That is a measure of income inequality... not poverty.

Same thing? What is a measure of poverty if not a measure of income inequality? The concept of poverty categorizes people who do not earn enough to live in society. How are these different?

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#145

Post by seydor »

bane wrote: post #133

There are quite a few comments here about "you need money to raise kids". There are similar statements made about housing size, cost, etc. and those end up on "but you don't need 8,000 sq ft to live!" These are, frankly IMHO, bizarre arguments that seem conditioned on socio-commercial training along the lines of "you need a diamond to propose!". Absolutely none of these are true: - People had sex and stable relations…

> are fundamentally dishonest about what our problems are

It's more like, we make up excuses because we don't know our real motives or don't want to outright say we dont want kids because it's societally unacceptable.

I believe statistics show there is a rise in childlessness , but people having kids have on average the same kids as a few decades ago.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#146

Post by opportune »

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…

What’s most concerning is that this might be a negative spiral. I think one reason young people these days get so squeezed financially is that proportionately more retirees/near retirees in the population means that, structurally, economic output needs to be taxed or otherwise transferred (from rents, dividends, capital gains) from those who are working to those who are retired. If this squeezing causes people to reduce their birthdates, it continues the age pyramid inversion and necessitates even more squeezing later on.

Suggesting we treat housing as a good (which should be easily accessible and inexpensive) rather than an investment would surely help and isn’t controversial here. But it does pose a systemic problem as many current and upcoming retirements at present hinge on housing prices, which is how we got into this mess.

Perhaps a more controversial suggestion: fund retirements based on taxes or other forms of “cash flow” rather than through investments. Tax policy has directly incentivized investment as a way of funding retirement. At a societal level increasing the capital base probably makes us more efficient but we are shifting so much more economic output/returns from labor to capital that you can easily be much, much wealthier in retirement than as a worker. And people wouldn’t need to save and invest so much if they knew they’d get a reasonable pension.

As good as it is for people in their 50s and beyond, I think turning everybody into an investor has created inherent age-based inequality which becomes especially impactful in the prices of housing (and probably other markets that are expected to retain value, even if not investments, like art).

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#147

Post by tjpnz »

petre wrote: post #85
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> House prices, inflation, traffic…food scarcity NIMBYism, combination of bad monetary policy and a supply shock, and bad urban planning. Tokyo has cheaper homes and less traffic than cities with a fraction of the population in America.

Tokyo also has earthquakes. Real estate is not an asset that appreciates in value in Japan, because it's eventually damaged or destroyed during an earthquake.

Not really. If your building is up to code it should get by just fine, and it's not uncommon to see places that are getting bowled. People here prefer moving into a place that's brand new. The land you purchase will retain its value though, assuming you're in one of the main centers.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#148

Post by remarkEon »

djmips wrote: post #40
xeromal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a guess but it's gonna be plastic

"There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?"

Clip from The Graduate, which is a fantastic film, for those unfamiliar with the reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMtLdE5Zq-8

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#149

Post by pyuser583 »

jll29 wrote: post #104
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 con…

Wouldn’t that increate insane redundancy?

Imagine all the iron mines. Not like we could just have a hand full of mines. We’d have to have tons of them all over.

Same with … everything.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#150

Post by safety1st »

COGlory wrote: post #32

I've been wondering a lot about fertility lately. Almost every married woman that I know of my age group is seemingly unable to have children, despite, in most cases, wanting to. This is often accompanied by PCOS, thyroid problems, or other strange but undiagnosed illnesses. The one exception to this seems to be those of Italian American vintage. Having grown up in Rhode Island I know quite a lot of Italian Americans…

If the reasons are numerous, varied and mysterious, Occam's razor suggests they may not be the real reasons.
Post reply on HN