The Shrinking Global population.. (Corporate Profits, unemployed, interstate, soldiers)

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan

Don't believe that was what either Ben Wattenberg or Mike/F/B/E intended. Also, no projections that I know of, indicate that we will be on the way down globally by 2050. The increases will still outweigh the decreases.

I am sure it was not what he intended. That was my own observation. If your source is The Birth Dearth, you may want to consider that it was written in 1987 and trends have accelerated.
There are a few things in the world that can be mathematically demonstrated, and demographics is one.
There are many demographers who show a decreasing population by 2050. Most sources on the internet, however, are actually the same source, over and over. And that source is the UN.
That regurgitation of UN projections by numerous sources is the crux of Empty Planet, and is one of the reasons it was written.


It takes 20 years to make a 20 year old person. There are no shortcuts. There is a global crash in the number of babies being born, as reported by BBC, so there will be a shortage of 20 year old women in 2042. While BBC shows population figures different from what we are discussing, the message is the same. Its only a matter of timing.
Here's another opinion:

The Population Collapse is too late to prevent and will happen by 2050 if not sooner. Here’s how I know: Worldwide Fertility Rates, Age of First Child, Median Age by Country, and Life Expectancy all tell the same story. The numbers have been crunched. By the way, the numbers have accelerated since 2019. It’s starting to get real! The world’s population may go down below 3 billion in our lifetimes. But that’s not the nearly the worst part about it, that will be the lack of young people.

And listen as DR Jordan Peterson discusses the reality that we may be - right now - living during the period when human population on earth is at its peak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcA3rI19jYM

[Mike from back east]

Here's a 1-hour video on for those who wish to hear Ben Wattenberg speaking at the Univ of MD on his book Fewer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?182239...y-depopulation

There've been a number of articles in major newspapers lately decrying a "birth dearth" and "baby bust" that leave birth rates below replacement levels. (Okay by me.) Comments to such articles really rake the authors over the coals for ignoring the underlying economic situations that lead people to have fewer or no children.

One such writer is Ross Douthat of the NY Times whose writing reflect his devout Catholic stance and his "circle the wagons" outlook of gloom and doom. Here's a piece about him in the Catholic press: Decadent societies lack babies, and hope. "Decadence" is a familiar theme of his, even has a book by that title. Excerpt of article:
"Douthat argued that the United States and parts of Europe are experiencing “a sort of loss of the sense of possibility, hope for the future,” and that this shows itself in slowing economies, gridlocked politics, and declining birth rates. In his book, Douthat wrote that “amid all of our society’s material plenty, one resource is conspicuously scarce. That resource is babies.” During the interview, Douthat said that some factors, such as a shift away from an agrarian economy and lower infant mortality rates, can help explain declining birth rates but cannot account for why birthrates have fallen below the replacement rate."

Mr. Douthat, comfortable with his NY Times salary, is so blinded by obedience to Catholic dogma that he's clueless to the harsh economic realities faced by potential parents. At a minimum these harsh realities reflect that jobs no longer offer the long term job security enjoyed by prior generations who had near-lifetime steady work and a company pension. This lack of job security hit home in the Great Recession that clobbered birth rates which fell at least 9% and job security vanished. In the USA pre-natal care is hit or miss, family leave almost non-existent, child care and early learning care is a fraction of what's found in other western nations; healthcare for adults is increasingly unaffordable; and student loans eat up income. The Great Recession put millions of homes into foreclosure at fire sale prices which were gobbled up by real estate investment firms with billion dollar budgets to where competing against corporate America for single family homes now prices millions of young people out of the housing market and denies them the long term stabilizing effect to put down roots and start a family. Talk about a perfect storm, is it any wonder that birth rates are declining.

[Mike from back east]

Let me focus on China for a moment. Articles from the NY Times are behind a paywall, which I consider the best $30 I spend each month, but there is a current offer of $4/month for one year, cancel or pause at any time. I highly recommend it, they have a variety of opinions, left and right, no BS or lies, and their articles are worthy of our Great Debates forum which is most excellently moderated.

Per the NY Times, the pandemic has clobbered the marriage rate in China to the lowest level in 36 years, which is probably true for most nations. Excerpt: "The fall in marriages has contributed to a plummet in birthrates, a worrying sign in China’s rapidly graying society and a phenomenon more familiar in countries like Japan and South Korea. ... Many young Chinese people say they would prefer not to get married, as a job becomes harder to find, competition more fierce and the cost of living less manageable (sounds like much of the USA too). ... “I do not want to get married at all,” said Yao Xing, a 32-year-old bachelor who lives in the city of Dandong, near China’s border with North Korea. His parents are pressuring him to get married and have children, but Mr. Yao said his job buying and selling kitchenware had made it hard to keep a steady income, which he sees as a prerequisite to marriage. Besides, he added, many women don’t want to get married anyway."

IMO women the world over are tired of working both outside the home and inside the home during their evenings and weekends. What woman in her right mind wants to be on the job 24/7 while hubs chills down at the bar with his BFFs.

In January 2022 the NY Times also reported "China’s Births Hit Historic Low, a Political Problem for Beijing." Excerpt of article:
"China announced on Monday that its birthrate plummeted for a fifth straight year in 2021, moving the world’s most populous country closer to the potentially seismic moment when its population will begin to shrink, and hastening a demographic crisis that could undermine its economy and even its political stability. The falling birthrate, coupled with the increased life expectancy that has accompanied China’s economic transformation over the last four decades, means the number of people of working age, relative to the growing number of people too old to work, has continued to decline. That could result in labor shortages, which could hamper economic growth, and reduce the tax revenue needed to support an aging society."

A modernized China no longer needs large families to work the rice paddies (sounds familiar, eh), and as the article says "An increasing number of Chinese women don’t want children."

The article goes on to say: "Unmarried women are increasingly reluctant to get married,” said Zheng Mu, an assistant professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore. “If you get married, you will have a more limited set of options. ... “Women are encouraged to achieve in education and career,” Ms. Mu said. ... another woman said “I don’t really want to spend my savings on kids,” said Wang Mingkun, 28, who lives in Beijing and teaches Korean language. “I actually don’t hate kids,” she went on. “I actually like them, but I don’t want to raise any.” ... "

That "limited set of options" applies to all nations as more societies require a 2-income family to support a decent standard of living. Couple that with women realizing that if they ever get divorced their financial status often changes to an official designation of "poverty" category. What woman in her right mind wants to roll such a loaded pair of dice . . .

[Avondalist]

One effect of the baby bust that I predict will happen is the conversion of child rearing from a positive externality to paid labor. Society currently depends on parents to pay for and raise children even though it makes no financial sense. Instead employers capture the human capital value (not captured by the worker herself) rather than parents. It's a raw deal.

There has to be some economic reason to have children otherwise birth rates will continue to decline.

[Sonic_Spork]

My kids cost me over a million dollars, and counting.

My parents had access to help from their parents, but squandered every resource or advantage they ever had, and they have nothing left that they'd be able or willing to use to help me, and will leave me nothing.

One of my sons has significant mental illness. More and more young people seem to be unable to function due to mental illness, it seems. But I try to be careful not to fall into the trap of being an older adult (well, 43 anyhow) bemoaning the seeming fragility of today's youth. I was not exactly a success story at age 20, myself.

But anyhow, I am running out of resources with which to help my kids. I don't have the resources to help my parents. No one is going to help me, in my own family, and it seems more and more that no one can look to anybody but themselves to help them when they are vulnerable...in their youth, or their old age. And when you feel on your own like that, it's harder, I think to want to take on the burden of more dependent people who rely on what little resources you've got to keep yourself secure.

I think that this is a calculation that a lot of adults are making. A man who can just barely make enough to support himself might worry about having to support a family. A woman who has her act together enough to get by for herself, might worry about a man she gets together with ending up wanting to sit around playing video games while she does all of the work of being an adult in the household. On top of that, who can afford kids? Not if you want to ever retire, that's for sure.

And once you have kids, forget about having any hopes or dreams of your own, unless having kids IS your hope and dream. Wanted to live in a nice house? In a particular, desirable part of the country or the world? Wanted to do some sort of creative career, or one that takes a big investment of time? Wanted to travel? Forget it. You don't matter, your mission is to create a good life for your children, this is your life now. Anything else you may have wanted to do? Probably not.

But hey, don't worry that you didn't write your book, one day you will be remembered as Jane Smith, born x date, died y date, wife to some guy and mom to some kids. Like your Mom, grandma, great-grandma, and every woman going back hundreds of years, if you're remembered in any way at all. Do I matter? Well, my kids love me. That's nice, I guess. My cat does, too, though, and he's a lot less expensive and stressful.

I think that folks are becoming pretty disenchanted with the notion that has been hammered into our heads, that there is such righteous virtue in selflessness and suffering. People are looking around and suspecting that all these ideas are just a means of control exerted upon society by the powerful of churches and states. And to some extent, choosing the path of tradition, including having kids who can then add labor units to the machine, feels like being compliant livestock. Well might they call the selfish or rebellious ones degenerate and decadent, for refusing to embrace a life of toil and sacrifice for the enrichment and benefit of those higher on the economic food chain. For wishing, simply, to MATTER, in ways of one's own choosing.

Figure a lot of countries tried really hard to make sure that subversive and dangerous ideas like that don't get spoken out loud or accepted or even seen or heard by their populations. But the internet has got to be making that harder, great firewalls or not.

I recently saw an article that scientists are working to use genetic manipulation to reverse the effects of aging and to cure various disease by resetting cells to a younger state. (Epigenics.) It has recently (look at the dates on any articles you read, older studies had more problems, they are making progress toward this being a safe thing)...worked in mice. What I'm not seeing, is whether the mice actually live a much longer lifespan than a regular mouse, I do not believe that we've achieved mouse immortality here. But I do think that we could see a future where some of the worst impacts on our quality of life could be very much headed off and repaired.

And I wonder how that will change people's equations, when it comes to having children.

There are really so many unknown things, from the effects of possible wars, future pandemics, food shortages, climate issues, and on the other side, advances in medicine and technology... I think it becomes somewhat pointless to really speculate on whether the population will go up or down, or by how much, or what effect that will have for humanity as a whole, and whether it's going to be doom and disaster for the species or a balm for our exploited planet, or what.

There's a whole heck of a lot of stuff that none of us can know.

[Mike from back east]

Sonic nailed it again, especially when she said "it seems more and more that no one can look to anybody but themselves" which is what I refer to as the YOYO Plan, i.e., You're On Your Own. For at least ten years I've posted about the YOYO plan in forums far and wide and blasted the GOP for pushing the YOYO Plan on us by trying to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and by not passing legislation to enable families even though they claim to be the party of family values and claim to be pro-life, etc. I don't expect things to get any better which means parents have to educate their kids that the YOYO Plan is the unwritten rule of the land and they have to be self sufficient else they'll end up hurting and/or homeless.

With population shrinkage we may see wages increase as employers bid for workers and this could help those stuck in YOYO Land but it's an iffy hope on my part.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

.............With population shrinkage we may see wages increase as employers bid for workers and this could help those stuck in YOYO Land but it's an iffy hope on my part.

That's exactly what happened during the years after Bubonic Plague killed off so many workers.
But this time the population will be tilted toward the aging, so even though workers may become hard to find and may be paid more, there will be more money needed for elder care and that means taxes.
Bubonic Plague had the effect of reducing the population of all age groups.
If the worst case projections for China come about it would mean China would abandon the manufacturing of cheap "stuff".
It could be are we living in the time of peak population AND the time of peak consumerism.

[Cuero]

Originally Posted by Ice_Major

Starting to wonder if immigration can save countries from shrinking. Not in principle, since I understand allowing more people into your country ups the population.

No, it doesn't. At that point all you're doing is throwing in the towel and giving away your country. Those new immigrants take over and make it theirs, they don't save a country. A country is not a geographical area it's a society and cultural group. Ask the Native Americans if European immigration saved their countries from population decline. Ask the Romans if the the barbarians boosted Rome. Ask Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States if the Palestinians boosted their nations and assimilated...

A slow and steady population decline is ideal and will help solve many crisis that mankind is facing. Water shortages, CO2 increases, energy shortages etc can all be solved by reducing population. Technology and higher standards of living will make caring for the elderly possible.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Ice_Major
Starting to wonder if immigration can save countries from shrinking. Not in principle, since I understand allowing more people into your country ups the population.

Originally Posted by Cuero

No, it doesn't. At that point all you're doing is throwing in the towel and giving away your country. Those new immigrants take over and make it theirs.............

Hard to see how immigrants who don't know each others and who are from from dozens of countries can "take a country over and make it theirs". They may form pockets or enclaves but take over the country?... I would think so. Especially given our population of 320M people and our constitution.


Immigrants are important, I think, especially the ones who are qualified and prepared to work. America spends $12,700 per year per kid educating those who graduate from high school. We should jump at the chance to get someone already educated, but that means an overhaul of immigration policy to the point that ID cards are issued at the border after a background check. Congress so far has no will to do it properly.


America will remain the destination of choice for immigrants, just as it always has. As a result, our workforce is expected to grow as the workforce in China, Russia, and Europe begins to shrink.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

Hard to see how immigrants who don't know each others and who are from from dozens of countries can "take a country over and make it theirs". They may form pockets or enclaves but take over the country?... I would think so. Especially given our population of 320M people and our constitution.

The persistent tension is between issues of economic vitality and perceived cultural cohesion. All over the world we see examples of how nations act against their economic self-interest, from idealistic desire to preserve what they regard as cultural or ethnic identity. One example is Brexit. Another is Japan's notorious reluctance to open itself to immigration, despite its now longstanding population stagnation/aging and decline. Yet another is the nationalistic backlash in France, that now for two presidential elections has nearly defeated the "mainstream", and has already upended their traditional left-leaning and right-leaning blocs.

A wise immigration policy would redistribute young, energetic and fertile people from wherever they are currently, to wherever they can effect the most good. Even if you are convinced that humanity worldwide is headed for inexorable decline, this decline can be managed and staved off for a generation or two or three, simply by shuffling people around. But the reluctance to do that, is intense - not just in America, but in any prosperous country. A pity.