I really don’t get what the big deal is, and to make it worse “birth rates” are commonly cited by extremists who have committed violent crimes such as mass shootings. People aren’t having kids cause they can’t survive maybe if you raise the standard of living people will pump out more kids!
Comments
Because the welfare state and social net depends on having workers to pay for those who aren’t working. If there’s no workers then the government needs to find the money somewhere to pay for pensions, healthcare, etc.
While a lot of the people who care about birth rates are extremists it’s also not an invalid concern to have.
At least here in the USA the issue is as people continue to try and limit immigration into the country when we are old and will need social security to live off of, there won’t be enough young working age people to work and make that money.
Either people need to have more kids or we need to let immigrants in to work.
People can’t stand when someone deflects from something that’s considered as “norm”.
They’re short sighted.
Declining birth rates are only an issue in the current system with the current limitations.
Once AI and automation eliminate huge amounts of what is generally considered work, and especially if things like UBI become common to fill the gap, an excess of people suddenly becomes a liability, not an asset.
In 20-50 years, too many humans will be a huge problem for societies and economies, not too few.
Unless there’s another big boy war or the next plague is a serious Spanish Flu/Black Death type scenario.
It’s not
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head (two different kinds of people):
Personal beliefs: Some people find meaning in the continuity of their lineage. By having kids, who will go on to have kids, you are leaving your mark upon the world even when you’re long gone. For example, if an ancestor of yours 1000 years ago decided he / she did not want kids, you won’t exist right now. Even though that ancestor is dead, their life is still impacting the world to this date (through you).
So if someone subscribes to this kind of thinking, I think it is pretty obvious why they would consider the recent trend to be quite bad.
Pragmatic thinking: The economy would slow down and possibly even collapse if people just decide to stop having kids. Naturally, people who are “winners” in the current status-quo don’t want it to change.
There was a chat about this recently, but higher SoL means lower Birth Rate in general.
There is discussion that it is a J shape, so at the very high end of SoL, Birth Rates rise, but data is very thin there.
Everything is built on the assumption increased consumption.
Government deficits? Relies on the idea of the tax base increasing as those debts mature.
Real estate beating inflation? Depends on increased housing demand.
Your retirement plan or pension sitting in the stock market? Depends on increased demand driving company values faster than inflation.
Medicare, medicaid and social security? Depends on more working, healthy folks paying in than older or disabled ones drawing out.
The working debt and expansion debts businesses from mom and pops to mega corps carry? Assumes more revenue in the future.
The wealthy nations built a global economy that only functions when there’s more and more people working and spending. It’s one big pyramid scheme, public and private.
If you get a population squeeze, then things stop working.
That’s the economic side. the crazies with a manifesto are usually going on about white replacement which is the general idea that white folks will simply be bred out of existence due to low birthrates. sometimes with the idea that’s the result of some purposeful conspiracy, be it simple immigration or some kind of chemical near-sterility from vaccines or whatever their thing is.
It’s a big deal when you realise how the government lets us down and allowed the cost of living to skyrocket
Less labor for capital to exploit.
Fewer cogs for the machine.
We’re a capitalist society and people are labor. Labor is needed to create more wealth for the already wealthy capitalists.
It’s because our society is built on an economic model that is like a house of cards.
Every generation of workers relies upon the next generation of workers to keep the economy fueled with money for benefits and to maintain a semblance of affordability. Yet every generation also gets larger.
So as a ton of people retire, if you don’t have enough new workers to replace the retiring ones, and to also allow the economy to grow even more through a larger workforce, than the economy will shrink and benefits will be threatened.
Our economy is built with the idea that infinite growth is possible within a finite world… which isn’t possible.
This explains it better then anyone can in a message https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=ohzGBgsd_FjIfbDf
Firstly, everyone has a right to decide whether or not they want to be a parent. So with that out of the way…
Look at countries like South Korea and Japan to see what’s about to happen to the rest of the developed world. If the birth rate plummets too much, there are severe contractions in the economy because there are fewer and fewer people spending.
As populations get older, there is also a heavier burden on younger populations to support retirements. Either taxes go up while these older populations are still around, or poor senior citizens live in squalid conditions. Most developed countries aren’t going to allow the latter.
Some people will argue that immigration is the solution to this problem, but it isn’t any more because shrinking birthrates are a global phenomenon. And climate change is going to cause widespread calamity in the few parts of the world where birthrates are high.
There is no one solution, but making safe housing more accessible, having data-driven and reasonable economic policies, and protecting workers from burnout would be a start.
Because huge corporations need more customers, if they can’t sell more shoes or cars or coffee makers they will have to close down a factory because they don’t need it.
This is my personal take:
Everything is beyond expensive now. I’m in my late 20s and I make enough to live comfortably on my own. I have no idea how I’d be able to afford the time and money to raise children at this time though.
Right now, I’m able to save money. If I had children to take care of, I don’t think I’d be able to save much and build any kind of wealth.
I can tell u the solution is in universal pre k and affordable childcare. Oh, and actual parental leave.
Because societies and entire cultures/languages can cease to exist if there is enough birth decline over enough generations and people are somewhat invested in the survival of their own groups. Look at what is happening in Japan. Maybe many other groups don’t care but there are a lot of people in Japan who want to maintain the existence of a Japanese state with Japanese people.
No slaves for the billionaires to throw in their mines.
While a lot of people who cite it are extremists who care about it for the wrong reasons, it still becomes a legitimate problem at a certain point. Look into what’s happening in Japan and South Korea; for decades they haven’t been having enough kids to replace their adult population, and as that adult population retires/dies, it creates vacuums in society that can’t be readily filled.
If you don’t have a kid, you are the only person, the only organism, in your entire direct ancestry up until the first living, reproducing organism to not reproduce.
Billions of years gone to waste because you don’t want to have a kid.
If you die a virgin, you’re the first person in your entire direct ancestry to not get laid.
Because misery loves company. If they have to suffer through screechers then so do we
It’s not just about having people support the system. It’s about having future functioning members of a society. A lot of people see kids as a long term expense but kids are also future doctors, electricians, plumbers, etc.
You need to replace the population as it ages either through immigration or birth. If you don’t like immigration that leaves birth.
It’s not a big deal, but some people have been persuaded that it is. If policymakers wanted to increase procreation, they would make it an advantageous option for women and families. The truth is, procreation is DISadvantageous for most women and most families.
I mean more people -> bigger economy -> wealthier country, generally. So that’s why governments care, i imagine
It’s a big deal because without youth the system collapses why is Indias economy booming because there’s a healthy output of young and educated individuals. Most of western countries are declining and that’s making them scared so they are stopping immigration especially from people that look different. It leads to more conservative outlook and then desperation
Pretty sure people aren’t having kids because we can barely afford to feed ourselves. My rent just went up another $200, my student loans are crushing me, and healthcare is a joke. But sure, let me bring a child into this mess.
Well we have to determine what is the point of humanity. For many species reproducing is their main goal. The other issue is an aging population without a younger one to help support it. Japan is a good example. So you’ll get more people not working and needing healthcare than people can support. And then it creates and imbalance in social programs like social security, Medicare/medicade.
Our future depends on a start trek like society where money isn’t an issue. Its requires a restructuring of how we think from the ground up. Universal basic income is the first step, allows people more time to care for children and the elderly. We can have it, but the 1% don’t want us to, because then they aren’t the 1% anymore.
>People aren’t having kids cause they can’t survive maybe if you raise the standard of living people will pump out more kids!
All evidence is that it’s the exact opposite. Both across countries and within countries, wealthier countries and wealthier individuals have fewer kids, and less well off countries/individuals have more kids.
The basic issue is that our social safety nets are designed similar to pyramid schemes, requiring population growth to stay properly funded. Because of that, a shrinking population would be very economically problematic. And even slowing growth has created problems because it wasn’t considered in the original model for the programs.
One correction though: standard of living is nearly continuously rising, so that’s not what’s keeping people from having kids. It’s complex but the biggest factor in many countries is the cultural fallout of Women’s Lib and contraception. No longer needing to marry young and now having a purpose other than just being baby-machines, women and men are delaying marriage and putting-off having children.
And ironically, income/standard of living is inversely related to birth rates: richer people have fewer kids and poorer people have more.
Everything is built on the population staying stable or increasing. If the working age population decreases then it means there’s not enough money going into pension systems for the elderly. Less working age people and population decline will also lead to economic depression in the long run because less money flowing around means businesses will close (and small businesses and small towns will be the first to fold). Less working age people also means less workers in fields like Healthcare which could also decrease quality of service for both the elderly and young. It also means that pensions would suffer too or taxes would be increased placing increased burden on young workers.
There’s also the issue of cultural practices which need younger people to carry them on. There are countless cultural practices which have been passed down for several centuries and millenia, and if there isn’t someone to continue their practice it dies. So if the population isn’t stable, more and more people will have to go into jobs the retired folks left just to keep things running leaving no one to pick up the torch for old cultural traditions. This is already seen in Korea and Japan with many ancient practices disappearing and small villages becoming ghost towns.
I do personally think the fertility rate issue is something that will self correct in the long run. However, it will probably be a painful process. This also isn’t a left vs right issue because both sides acknowledge it as an issue but handle it different ways throughout the decades. The “right” supposedly makes a fuss about it and pushes for child and parental benefits (even though this is something left has also pushed for a long time and is evident in Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, and Netherlands for a long time). The left advocate for more immigration to make up for it. The problem with the right’s stance is that this is something countries is already doing and it’s not working. The problem with the left’s solution is that its not a real long term solution because fertility rates everywhere are decreasing and eventually the places people are emigrating from won’t have anymore young people to bring in. Not to mention it could also be seem as a form of exploitation because apart from Israel all, countries with population growth are poor and the masses don’t have good education. Not to mention the people that do leave for places like the US and EU are usually not the poorest and uneducated of that country so you are essentially taking the “best” and leaving the “worst” behind its also effectively outsourcing “the burden of birth and child rearing” to those people which is doubly exploitative. The problem with the right’s solution is that a lot of these policies are already in place and we’re actually put in place by left leaning governments and it has done nothing. Look at Hungary, it’s financial assistance to parents and children is some of the most generous and yet hasn’t substantially impact fertility rate and is slowly bankruting their country. Even in the Scandinavian countries and France with very generous assistance, great worker protections, child daycare support, great Healthcare, etc haven’t been able succeed. These schemes will also becoming increasing more expensive as the population gets older and decreases.
It is only an issue in the extremes. People imagine how a society where everybody is 80 would function, ignoring the fact we got plenty of active doctors, nurses and non-medical specialists active in their 60s. One 90-year old does not need a swarm of young adults to keep him alive, few younger people can easily support more older people.
Human productivity has increased insanely, but salaries are lagging behind. Older people retire/die later, preventing younger people from finding jobs, getting promotions or finding housing.
The only issue is that society is rules by boomers who refuse to pay millenials and Gen-Zers the money they earned themselves.
Because ever since infancy you were raised that having kids deems you valuable as a person. Someone without kids is seen as lazy, unproductive, and just wasting time. I think kids are more than just continuing the bloodline. People don’t realize that kids are a life changing event. They’re not something you can just have.
i recently had an interesting conversation with chatGPT that dove into the idea that population collapse will happen in any species that does not have the space to expand anymore. It has only been fairly recently that humans have in a sense ‘conquered’ the world, that sense being that all geographical space has been urbanized, farmed or preserved to the extent that there is no expansionist ambition anymore, and so the necessariness of having children to fill space no longer exists. but since exploration is a facet of human nature, we’ve shifted that focus into digital space, building more and more virtual worlds, the population can exist as a simulation of NPCs now.
Among not being able to pay the same for certain functions from a shrinking workforce. If things go as they warn, there would at some point be a huge imbalance in the population. A large percentage of that population would be geriatric compared to not. No one to take care of this huge population of elderly peoples would create further issues in society.
Capitalism depends on a growing population to continue growth. If populations decrease there could be a recession or a depression. But realistically an economy that is straining with it’s resources would become more healthy when population decreases.
Late stage capitalism relies on constant growth on revenue. If the birth rate drops, in a few years every company is going to have revenue drops, and won’t someone please think of the shareholders!!!
Yesterday’s workers are given retirement given today’s workers. Shrinking generations means less people supporting the generation that retires
it’s not, people that think it is are just full of shit
It may lead to economic issues in the future… for example, retirement plans, Social Security, pensions, etc. rely on more people paying into the system than it pays out. With seniors living longer, a higher ratio of retirees to workers mean financial issues with continuing to pay out Social Security.
It may also mean worker shortages in general, as there are fewer young people to enter the workforce relative to the number of elderly who have left the workforce. This may be especially problematic in areas like healthcare and caregivers, where an aging population creates a surge in demand. But it can also create shortages of workers in other area, and can shift the consumer economy as 20-somethings create a lot more demand for goods and services than elderly do. A 25 year old is buying TVs and sneakers, going to salons and getting tattoos, going out for cocktails and grabbing a burrito on the way home from work for dinner. Maybe they’re furnishing a house or have become new parents. Elderly are sitting at home, or in their assisted living center, etc. and not buying much or consuming many services.
If you aren’t living you are dying.
If you aren’t living, you are dying.
Birth rates aren’t dropping because people hate children. they’re dropping because people don’t want their kids growing up in a system built to exhaust and exploit them.
Yes but don’t bring up politics
The standard of living has never been higher globally!
No kids ..no Social Security. The ponzi scheme collapses
Our economy is a pyramid scheme that requires an ever-expanding population to exploit. An economy doesn’t just “grow” on its own, and dollars don’t reproduce like little bunnies. The growing economy, and the increasing stock market, all depend upon a growing population to add their labor and dollars to the system.
Because we are dangerously underpopulated. There are barely 8 billion of us left on the planet.
Farms factories offices airports train stations roads etc need people to maintain them and make them operationals. If one person retire now and another younger person start working, then they can function properly. If more people retire then we may start having problem. Suddenly the road is not smooth, trains are canceled, factories closed etc etc.
Well of course a lot of other factors play a role here. But we can assume that we are talking in the global scale.
at least in the extremist case theyre usually concerned that white people in particular arent having enough children and that people of other races, either through immigration or their own births, will “replace” them. its a stupid thing to be worried about
Personally, I’m glad people are more conscious about this decision, but education starts at home. Unfortunately, some of the people whom I think would be EXCELLENT parents and would raise extraordinary people are having 0 while complete scumbags are having 3. This will reshape the fabric of society in 20 years and that’s really sad
Capitalism relies on infinite growth and is nit sustainable. For this world to remain habitable, growth needs to stop. The success of capitalism depends on the destruction of the earth.
It is not a standard of living issue. It is a child rearing issue. There was a time when a single earner could support a family of 4 or 5. Now even a family of two requires a 2 person income. Example: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have some of the highest growth rates in the world. SA has a very high standard of living compared to Pakistan but both have similar growth rates. It is because both are largely single earner economies.
But society is an organism that can grow or shrink. It can’t stay static. If the Western economies want a higher birth rate, they will have to pay one parent to stay home and raise children. There is no other way. The Koreans are paying women to have babies but it isn’t working because they are not paying a parent to stay home and raise those babies.
It’s fine if people don’t want kids but if the population falls too quickly there can be really bad side effects on everyone.
China’s one child policy sort of proves it’s not a good idea. If you slowly reduce the population though it’s better.
If fewer people have children, then the dependent population (disabled, elderly, children, sick) absorb more of the share of either nation-state or working-class adult resources over time, assuming no reversal of population growth or immigration.
4 grandparents to 2 working adults and 4 children
–> means the population pyramid will have a very healthy working pop to support the elderly/children where the kids inherit most of the wealth over time
Vs
4 grandparents to 2 working adults and 1 child
–> means the working population will decrease over time as the elderly absorb most of the wealth and social benefits, leaving the next generation impoverished.
The US has a low birth rate but has a high legal immigration rate (about 1M per year usually wealthy or middle-age healthy laborers) and a large illegal immigrant population of working class adults. Compared to Japan and S. Korea with almost no immigration, a negative growth rate, and large elderly population.
The world economy is built on consumption and wealth accrual not prosperity.
Less people can be good if your goal is for everyone to be prosperous, it’s bad if your goals it make more money! Who’s gonna work your factories and pay for your goods??
Also armies and war headcounts. Though that’s not very important between counties that have nukes.