>if the birth rate continues to drop around the world at its current pace, economic growth and workers’ retirement prospects will go the way of those projections: adjusting every few years to a smaller, sadder, poorer future.
Nah. Robots. AI. Economic growth will do the opposite of that.
andsoitis · 8h ago
> Rich countries will all have become like Japan, stagnant and aging.
Stagnation comes from an aversion to risk-taking.
I do not know that it is foregone conclusion that slowing birthrates necessarily has to lead to risk aversion.
foxyv · 1h ago
Aversion to risk taking is usually due to a cost benefit analysis. You don't take risks that you are unwilling to accept the consequences for. I call it the Chris Farley decision tree. Do I want to take the risk of ending up homeless in a van, down by the river. Except, good luck finding a van to live in now and it will probably be impounded.
bell-cot · 8h ago
Why would a rational young person take the risk (of becoming a parent), when the system they face has been optimized to "crushing costs on me, most benefits to others"?
andsoitis · 8h ago
The risk I'm talking about is trying new things that move civilization forward. That is the risk-taking that prevents stagnation.
toomuchtodo · 8h ago
Can you share what risks we could take that would move civilization forward in a meaningful way that provides benefits?
lo_zamoyski · 6h ago
Some people think technology (like automation and AI) will somehow do the trick, making each workers much more productive. Of course, such technologies tend to lower the prices of goods and services, just like industrialization did. And ultimately, such technology will spread quickly, reducing whatever competitive edge this was supposed to provide.
No comments yet
lo_zamoyski · 6h ago
First, while we have eliminated the "family wage", which was what allowed American working class families to be supported on one income alone in the 1950s, and we have made things like the housing market cost prohibitive, and wrecked community life, we also have different priorities today. For example, among those who can afford an annual vacation to the Caribbean or a new car or whatever, many would not be willing to give that up if they had to in order to have another child. Keeping up with the Jones's is a thing, and we simply view children as burdensome sacrifices that deprive us of empty self-indulgence rather than great riches and an occasion to grow as a human being.
Second, the obsession with finances is unjustified. What's "enough" to have a child? And will you ever get there? You might hit infertility sooner and then it'll be too late. Having a child is an incredible motivator, because you have a firm and clear and worthy purpose. Your whole life is rearranged, and in a good way. You have descendants and in that sense, you are not alone or the end of the line. When children are a mere possibility, mere phantoms that you hope to afford one day, you won't have the same drive, and it becomes easy to get sidetracked or fall into resignation.
toomuchtodo · 1h ago
To raise a child in the US 0-18 is ~$330k in 2023 dollars. That buys a lot of happiness sans child, not to mention the loss of freedom and autonomy required for child rearing not lost by avoiding children.
The value proposition is simply not compelling.
silverquiet · 6h ago
I neither have children nor travel often, but I believe that an annual Caribbean vacation is significantly cheaper than a child. I don't doubt that children can be as you say; that they provide a motivation and sense of purpose for their parents. But clearly that is not the case for all as the number of un-involved parents would suggest.
For myself, I think economic anxiety/precarity has been one of the strongest motivators for never wanting children. As I've faced layoffs, I've often thought to myself, "at least I don't have any kids depending on me" and worried for my coworkers who did. It doesn't help that I face some medical issues either.
But I think more than anything, I just don't want to force some poor child into this world/economic system that we have created that I've never really felt comfortable in. I used to think that this made me some kind of strange outlier, but more and more, given that we see ever decreasing fertility, perhaps I was merely early to this feeling.
lo_zamoyski · 1h ago
Whatever criticisms of the economic system one might have (and there are plenty), we seem to be forgetting that we live in the most materially abundant and safe period of human history, and the problem is especially apparent in the richest countries of the world. So this is no explanation of the demographic crisis.
The decision not to have children is also not especially unique to those in economically precarious situations or those living in poverty. On the contrary, the demographic crisis affects everyone, including a well-off middle class that will have no trouble providing for its children. On top of that, while I support sound pro-natal policies, what we've found is that using financial incentives has very little to no effect on increasing birth rates.
Demographic decline reflects deeper problems in our cultures. We structure our lives in ways that do not respect optimal fertility, putting things off until "we're established in our careers". We define ourselves by what we own. We have a prejudice against large families, associating them with the shame of poverty, misery, backwardness, and a lack of education instead of the great wealth that they are. We have taken individualism to such an extreme that family and community life has taken a huge blow, and with it, the broad social support children would usually grow up with. Children have fewer siblings and fewer cousins to play with and grow up with. We have a dating culture that, instead of functioning as a way to find someone to marry to start a family, is recreational, aimless, and devoid of any desire for commitment. Expectations w.r.t. children that are financially costly lead to thinking that having more children would "deprive" them of a desired standard (this relates to keeping up with the Jones's). And what if you have more than 2 children in close succession? Well, because of safety regulations, you need to buy a larger car, because a basic sedan cannot hold three car seats.
Taken in aggregate, the cultural climate, as well as the attitudes it shapes, is not favorable.
silverquiet · 45m ago
I appreciate the response. I feel like half the points in your third paragraph could easily be framed as economic factors rather than cultural (though I don't think those are as separate as people often seem to think).
What is most interesting to me is that you said cultures (plural) when saying that we have deeper problems. But according to the article, this has become a nearly universal issue across all cultures of the world; and what force but economic globalization could cause something like that?
lo_zamoyski · 21m ago
> what force but economic globalization could cause something like that?
This is a good observation. One possibility is that globalism serves as a vector for communicating certain cultural habits. A natural place to look is the US as it has been the primary globalizing force in recent history. American popular culture (TV, cinema), NGOs, the influence of American universities, etc. all serve to spread ideas sell a certain vision of life. It doesn't matter if the ideas are good. These methods appeal to the emotions.
And this is not a bad suspicion, as it seems that the inverse relation between number of children and wealth, when people are otherwise permitted to have children as they wish, seems to be characteristic of consumerist societies.
I've noticed that stories about the birth-rate crisis - or about the affordable housing crisis, or similar "the old and the 1% impose ever-heavier burdens on the young and the 99%" trends - always assume that social stability is unbreakable.
Sadly, I suspect that comforting assumption will prove horribly wrong.
Nah. Robots. AI. Economic growth will do the opposite of that.
Stagnation comes from an aversion to risk-taking.
I do not know that it is foregone conclusion that slowing birthrates necessarily has to lead to risk aversion.
No comments yet
Second, the obsession with finances is unjustified. What's "enough" to have a child? And will you ever get there? You might hit infertility sooner and then it'll be too late. Having a child is an incredible motivator, because you have a firm and clear and worthy purpose. Your whole life is rearranged, and in a good way. You have descendants and in that sense, you are not alone or the end of the line. When children are a mere possibility, mere phantoms that you hope to afford one day, you won't have the same drive, and it becomes easy to get sidetracked or fall into resignation.
The value proposition is simply not compelling.
For myself, I think economic anxiety/precarity has been one of the strongest motivators for never wanting children. As I've faced layoffs, I've often thought to myself, "at least I don't have any kids depending on me" and worried for my coworkers who did. It doesn't help that I face some medical issues either.
But I think more than anything, I just don't want to force some poor child into this world/economic system that we have created that I've never really felt comfortable in. I used to think that this made me some kind of strange outlier, but more and more, given that we see ever decreasing fertility, perhaps I was merely early to this feeling.
The decision not to have children is also not especially unique to those in economically precarious situations or those living in poverty. On the contrary, the demographic crisis affects everyone, including a well-off middle class that will have no trouble providing for its children. On top of that, while I support sound pro-natal policies, what we've found is that using financial incentives has very little to no effect on increasing birth rates.
Demographic decline reflects deeper problems in our cultures. We structure our lives in ways that do not respect optimal fertility, putting things off until "we're established in our careers". We define ourselves by what we own. We have a prejudice against large families, associating them with the shame of poverty, misery, backwardness, and a lack of education instead of the great wealth that they are. We have taken individualism to such an extreme that family and community life has taken a huge blow, and with it, the broad social support children would usually grow up with. Children have fewer siblings and fewer cousins to play with and grow up with. We have a dating culture that, instead of functioning as a way to find someone to marry to start a family, is recreational, aimless, and devoid of any desire for commitment. Expectations w.r.t. children that are financially costly lead to thinking that having more children would "deprive" them of a desired standard (this relates to keeping up with the Jones's). And what if you have more than 2 children in close succession? Well, because of safety regulations, you need to buy a larger car, because a basic sedan cannot hold three car seats.
Taken in aggregate, the cultural climate, as well as the attitudes it shapes, is not favorable.
What is most interesting to me is that you said cultures (plural) when saying that we have deeper problems. But according to the article, this has become a nearly universal issue across all cultures of the world; and what force but economic globalization could cause something like that?
This is a good observation. One possibility is that globalism serves as a vector for communicating certain cultural habits. A natural place to look is the US as it has been the primary globalizing force in recent history. American popular culture (TV, cinema), NGOs, the influence of American universities, etc. all serve to spread ideas sell a certain vision of life. It doesn't matter if the ideas are good. These methods appeal to the emotions.
And this is not a bad suspicion, as it seems that the inverse relation between number of children and wealth, when people are otherwise permitted to have children as they wish, seems to be characteristic of consumerist societies.
Sadly, I suspect that comforting assumption will prove horribly wrong.