U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2020, 11:47 AM
 
5,226 posts, read 2,905,753 times
Reputation: 6753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisville Slugger View Post
Why is this surprising though? Kids cost money. A lot of people born between 1981 and 1996 most likely have lots of student loan debt. Some might wait longer to have kids because of this. Some focus more on their careers and decide to have kids later in life. Maybe they realize it's not worth it and don't have any at all. Add to this to the high cost of living in the coastal cities and it's not a surprise why the fertility rate is declining.
I am part of the 1981-1996 birth cohort known as the Millennials. The mating environment for Millennials is pretty bleak. There are huge surpluses of single men relative to single women in most major metros in this age bracket. Obesity is up for both sexes. Debt and employment issues are persistent. There's not much healthy about romantic relationships in general and the idea is bringing children into a highly unstable world isn't palatable for a lot of the cohort. Marriage failures rates are still high. Romantic relationships are fleeting and transient, just like the typical employer-employee relationship.

The United States is on the path of replicating Japan's age pyramid, meaning that there will be fewer people of working age in coming decades, which will inhibit productivity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2020, 11:51 AM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Why immigration? Why not just have policies that encourage more children in US families?
Great catch.

I'd say it needs to be both rather than either-or.

In general, I'm not sure policies to encourage more childbearing among women of childbearing age can turn things around quickly enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 11:57 AM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom View Post
Maybe "importing" the world's fertile, young women would help our economy, but it would be at the risk of upsetting/destabilizing other countries.
Perhaps.

But I'm not worried about those other countries - I'm worried about our country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom View Post
I think collectively we just know, perhaps subconsciously even, that the majority of us (or our kids), will live with a lower standard of living than what we have now or what our parents and grandparents had.
I don't see any economic data to support that conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 11:59 AM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swizzle Stick View Post
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Yes. The data show conclusively we need more human beings 21 years from today and going forward to do all the work needed, and increasing the immigration among fertile women of childbearing years is one component of a multi-pronged approach.

Do you have a problem with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:00 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
30,212 posts, read 66,715,215 times
Reputation: 35676
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Duval View Post
... nations are below replacement rate. Goal is decrease of world's population.
Agreed. The only problem I see with the reduction news is those LEAST able to provide for them have the most.
The last fifty years of that is at the root of the UBI problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:00 PM
 
Location: The North Star State
2,526 posts, read 766,876 times
Reputation: 10808
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Why immigration? Why not just have policies that encourage more children in US families?
Immigration is cheaper. Raising children costs a lot of money - not just from parents but from society. Most human beings will not be a net economic contributor before the age of twenty, and those who go to college will take several years beyond that. But adult immigrants have already been raised.

Immigration is also significantly selective. Many immigrants are selected for their skills (education, experience, etc.). This does not happen with children, where you get the entire unskewed spectrum of human potential.

There is no rational downside to immigration in this regard (there are plenty of irrational ones, of course).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:03 PM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaminB12 View Post
I mean sure.... A president can impact immigration and implement things like free/inexpensive daycare.
While the president does have unique emergency powers, I doubt that implementing free/inexpensive daycare is one of them. I believe that would require Congress to act.

A better place for that to happen, of course, is at the State and Local level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Portal to the Pacific
6,348 posts, read 5,869,081 times
Reputation: 8098
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Perhaps.

But I'm not worried about those other countries - I'm worried about our country.



I don't see any economic data to support that conclusion.
Are you serious? Did you actually say that?

Um, yeah, well.. I think the last two months have demonstrated that what happens in other countries can quickly overwhelm, kill and crush what is happening in our country. If you are in doubt, ask health care workers, the 30 million people looking for unemployment benefits and the families of 100,000 USA covid-19 fatalities.

Quality of life won't necessarily show up in "economic data". But I encourage you to read RJ312's response to understand what young, fertile people are up against when they think about finding a mate and reproducing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:12 PM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltdumbear View Post
This Human 'Race' NEEDS to slow down, and STOP breeding like rabbits.
I see you never studied Demographic Economics, Economic Demography, or Population Economics.

That's OK. There are some good online courses should you decide to learn more in your spare time.

There's an old joke that goes something like this: An Economic Demographer is much like an actuary or tax accountant except without the charismatic personality.

The main idea is that things show up 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now as being bad, and the solution would be to get into your time machine and come back to the year 2020 and fix them. Obviously, that's not possible, so instead in the current year we forecast what the changes in population & demographics will have on the economy in 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, etc -- and make changes today so that tomorrow is better than it otherwise would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 12:21 PM
 
5,968 posts, read 1,755,840 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
This is backward.
Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
General population income and buying power were declining ever since 80s.
Completely untrue. Since the 1980s, our standard of living has been increasing, the percentage of the population in poverty has been declining as they move up to become middle class, and similarly many in the middle class have been movin' on up as well. The rate of change of technical innovation has driven a huge increase in standards-of-living around the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
Women HAD to go to work to maintain family desire to "live the life" and to pay off consumer debt.
Completely untrue.

With the advent of "The Pill", women were able to exert more planning over childbearing - and many made the conscious decision to enter the workforce. That trend has not been short-lived; it was true in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and today in 2020.

At the same time, societal norms changed such that the bulk of women who chose to enter the workforce saw opportunities beyond the historical "nurse, librarian, school teacher and secretary." Those norms were codified into law to prevent widespread gender-discrimination in employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top