Live data from Hacker News

Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

economist.com

161–170 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#161
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old is your age group? I noticed the same thing among my friends, but then also noticed they all didn't start having kids until mid-30s. It turns out career-oriented women are choosing to start having kids much later in their lives than in previous decades, which is definitely a compounding factor.

Late 20s to early 30s mostly. Some have been trying for years though.

As point of comparison - mean age of first birth for a woman in 1970 was 21.4.

In 2017 it was 26.8. In the kinds of places people on this site usually hail from, it was near 30. (MA being oldest, at 29.3)

Being quite a few years older than when people typically had kids a generation ago, is probably going to result in some differences in how easy it is.

Not saying that's a full explanation either, but it's likely at least part of it.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#162
One overlooked aspect of all this is the evangelism around birth rate reduction that happened in the 20th century. My family actually came to the US because my dad got caught up with these folks, who worked hard to reduce the number of brown people being born around the world. In many ways the effect was positive—in my home country the birth rate dropped from 5.7 the year I was born to a sustainable 2.0 today. In my part of the world this was seen as a necessary step towards economic development and modernity.

What I realized over the years, though, was there was an ideological underpinning to it. Frankly it’s deeply disquieting—we had a party the other day with some of my dad’s family work friends, and someone asked whether we’d have a fourth child. One lady got very uncomfortable at the idea and muttered something about family planning (even though we’re rich and could easily afford another kid). It’s as if they are drawn to small families in and of themselves, not means as a means to practical ends.

This ideology has now been exported all over the world, even to societies that are historically natalist and family oriented. The birth rate in Japan and Korea of course has plummeted. But birth rates among Asian Americans is also abysmally low, despite their affluence.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#163
I know it's the Economist, but it would be great if it could at least contemplate some of the benefits of a shrinking population: - less people, therefore less competition for houses, therefore lower house prices - less urban sprawl, more nature reserves - less cars, less traffic - less farming, therefore less competition with native animals for land

It might even lead to a (long-awaited) increase in real wages if there is more competition for workers ... oh wait, AI will take care of that.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#164

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

That's not going to happen, though.

Population growth will continue whether you're having children or not. Western economies are Ponzi schemes and the ones needing your votes know it. You may not have any kids, but there are millions of Africans, Indians, and Chinese ready and willing to flood your country, and there are politicians only too eager to see them pouring across undefended borders. Some of these countries are seeing 9+ births per woman; there will be no shortage of new people to replace your non-existent grandchildren.

The solution would require some degree of ethnonationalism, else how do you argue against this policy? From a "we are all the same" viewpoint, it is unremarkable if Canada is 100% ethnically Indian and Chinese in 200 years; if Britain and Australia are African colonies; if America is... American. The very thought of racial discrimination in immigration, however, is totally unpalatable and unconscionable to most Westerners, and thus there is still no solution.

Your descendants' positions will be filled. There is no depopulation fantasy in the West's future. There can only be replacement.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#165
post #98
post #84

Consider Victorian era Britain, when the average person is much poorer, the air is heavily polluted with coal use, and the medical care is almost non-existant by modern standards. Fertility rate is about 5-6. Then it dropped to around 3 over 100 years and has been on a steady downward trajectory ever since. This pattern is broadly replicated everywhere that industrializes. Whatever the cause, it's not due to wealth p…

100% I think this popular narrative of "kids are too expensive" is mostly a media fiction. It's more about individual comfort. Money can be a factor in comfort, but it's hardly the only one. Poorer immigrants tend to have many children. Even today, poorer people in general have more kids than wealthy folks. Just look at the data - it contradicts the headlines. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, kids were free labor for th…

I don't think the data supports your hypothesis, at least if we're talking recent declines in rich countries from their prior levels and not trying to answer "why does the US have a lower birth rate than Mauritania".

Birth rate declines in the US in the past 15-20 years have been entirely among the poor. Among the higher-income they've been basically stable.

Here's a simple chart: https://www.statista.com/statistics/562541/birth-rate-by-pov...

From 2005-2021, the change in birth rates by group:

Below poverty level - down 25%

Income 100-199% of poverty level - down 15%

Income 200%+ of poverty level - up 2%.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#166
post #95
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What if those left alone in rural areas end up moving to cities for the exact reasons they already do? At least that is what happens right now. Rural areas do nothing to make the young stay. If you don't own a car, you are lost. Most jobs are mechanical in nature, software almost nowhere to be found. And the cities are growing, slowly, but they are. What maes you think this effect would be changed just because o…

Math? City population has to be smaller than total population. If total population eventually shrinks to zero, city population must eventually too.

Haha, if we are talking about the final outcome of zero population, of course the cities are empty. But until then, there is still some way to go. And I am pretty convinced people will flock together in cities instead of withering away lonely in the countryside.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#167
This may be in part by evolutionary pressure. I don't have the link anymore, but I was reading that many species have an evolutionary limit to population size - and you would think it wouldn't apply to humans, but it may.

The thought goes that as humans' biological needs for survival are better met, the reproductive needs trend downward.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#168

I know it's the Economist, but it would be great if it could at least contemplate some of the benefits of a shrinking population: - less people, therefore less competition for houses, therefore lower house prices - less urban sprawl, more nature reserves - less cars, less traffic - less farming, therefore less competition with native animals for land It might even lead to a (long-awaited) increase in real wages if th…

But that hasn't borne out anywhere. Pretty much everywhere there's a population decline, there's also all sorts of other systemic issues.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#169
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Japan (where I live) at least it doesn't seem like a carrying capacity problem, but a general lack of desire among young people to start families.

I've thought about this, and I'm no expert, but I've come to be convinced this is how reaching carrying capacity is meant to feel.

It's easy to imagine it as some sort of famine, where there isn't enough food to feed children, or overcrowding so extreme that everyone lives in slums and it's simply impossible to have kids. If it ever reached that point, a population graph would show a sharp fall, not a steady leveling-off.

When I think about previous generations in my country (Mexico) they seem more care-free. They loved someone, they had babies. One single head of household could afford to buy a house. It was a house too, not some tiny apartment!

I look at my life though and it just seems a little more stressful in a bunch of small ways. The squeeze is gentle, not abrupt, but it's there. Living spaces seem smaller, which adds a little stress. Comparing vs old photos, the city just looks more crowded, more full of traffic, which adds a little stress. In their 20s my parents weren't thinking about the environment, but I am, which adds a little stress. I think about the living standard I could give my kids more than my parents seemed to; I just can't shake the thought that my kids need to stand out from the huge crowds of people there's now, which adds a little stress. At the end of the day all these little bits of stress add up and lead to me not wanting kids any time soon.

Perhaps this is what approaching a population cap is meant to feel like. Just stress here and there, leading to less fertility, rather than some hard physical limit.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#170
It's actually pretty simple.

People are too busy to think about stuff they aren't directly interested in.

Pressure to have kids is reducing year by year (relatively, and it compounds quickly).

Since everybody is being trained to pursue personal excellence/satiety they're pushing back everything that isn't directly in their interests.

This includes devaluation of relationships (romantic, parental, and platonic). In exchange for the elevation of the individual.

And so, when the question of kids comes up, it's done with the same myopic lens as most other decisions. Which isn't to say, that its easy to just have children. But, people aren't exactly kicking their feet up. They're busy; very very busy.

This is actually probably no different than before, but there was momentum from traditions and peer pressure. But because the rails have diverged for so long, the curve is compounding.

Post reply on HN