Fertility Rates Drop to Lowest Level Measured in the US, Says the CDC

[I Push Buttons]

About the same as telling people that the average joe can easily save up enough money to retire without aid (which btw, includes companies matching your retirement plan, not all places do), because no one ever gets cancer, has their spouse die or leave, has sudden misfortunes that they couldn't possibly prepare for, all those good things.

Hell even beyond saving up a lot of money...

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...irement-2016-3

Only 18% of the bottom 60% of workers (aged 32-61) have retirement savings... IE: 82% of them have no retirement savings at all.

Then on top of that the median retirement savings in the US is $5,000... The average is only $95,000, and it is only that "high" (lolnotevenhigh) because of the upper 20% saving a shit ton, since the bottom 60% saves literally nothing.

[Theodarzna]

Hell even beyond saving up a lot of money...

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...irement-2016-3

Only 18% of the bottom 60% of workers (aged 32-61) have retirement savings... IE: 82% of them have no retirement savings at all.

Then on top of that the median retirement savings in the US is $5,000... The average is only $95,000, and it is only that "high" (lolnotevenhigh) because of the upper 20% saving a shit ton, since the bottom 60% saves literally nothing.

Considering wages have not kept pace with inflation at all, I am shocked the savings are even that high.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

About the same as telling people that the average joe can easily save up enough money to retire without aid (which btw, includes companies matching your retirement plan, not all places do), because no one ever gets cancer, has their spouse die or leave, has sudden misfortunes that they couldn't possibly prepare for, all those good things.

Difference is we can put a lot more of our energy into the youth of this country and empower them to complete and bring more diversity towards our economy. Otherwise again, we're just shoring up a losing front that will end up hurting everyone in the long run. The other thing we could strive for is removing the Federal Government from regulation and bailouts leaving companies utterly exposed to competition and bad decision-making, which would further empower the citizenry to take things into their own hands.

I know we all fear a lack of regulation BUT it sure as fuck isn't helping us in the long run. It's simply giving more reason for corporations to buyout power in Washington and to use those same regulations against the little man. Only thing our government should squelch is monopolies. Beyond that, no aid nor oversight. Everything else should be dealt with by the court system.

[Theodarzna]

I think ideally we'd like to see things level off and come to a balance.

Balance isn't exactly likely however. Balance would require an economy that is neither growing to expects to grow. That would require a tectonic level shift in policy, and American values IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

I want to see the data filtered by income and by ethnicity.

I bet it would show that birthrates for certain income levels and certain ethnicities are not down at all.

Its actually down for all peoples save for the incredibly poor, but that cuts across all ethnic groups.

[Deleted]

Back in the day getting a minimum wage job meant you could go to school and have an apartment. A factory labor job meant you could have a house even if it wasn't a big one. That probably has something to do with it.

I have a good job (in Ireland). My father worked in construction in New York in the early 80s and earned almost as much in raw numbers, even before you take inflation into account. 35 years of inflation and my IT job of 10 hour days is still ballpark what he made for 4 hour days (he was working in compressed air underground construction, so some hazard pay was involved)

[Symphonic]

Sounds like it will be easier to find adoptive parents now, in that case.

[kaid]

That's what immigration is for.

Yup pretty much this. Keep immigration rates high enough to buffer the shock of the lower birth rates until you can gradually ratchet down the population to better levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell even beyond saving up a lot of money...

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...irement-2016-3

Only 18% of the bottom 60% of workers (aged 32-61) have retirement savings... IE: 82% of them have no retirement savings at all.

Then on top of that the median retirement savings in the US is $5,000... The average is only $95,000, and it is only that "high" (lolnotevenhigh) because of the upper 20% saving a shit ton, since the bottom 60% saves literally nothing.

If you are barely scraping by paycheck to pay check and you have not gotten noticeable raises in decades something has to go and that currently is savings for retirement. No point saving for later if you need it right now to live.

[Theodarzna]

Yup pretty much this. Keep immigration rates high enough to buffer the shock of the lower birth rates until you can gradually ratchet down the population to better levels.

That only works if the world in general isn't ALSO undergoing the same phenomena.

And the main reason for this immigration level is to effectively sustain things. Governments don't wish to admit their country is full of old people and not children.

[Independent voter]

Religious families have a lot of kids.

[Powerogue]

That is a common response, but actually it is a bad thing because it has a crippling effect on economies and the ability of governments to function.

Less young people means less taxes to take care of the elderly, less consumer spending/less demand and so less jobs, less over all productivity, ect.

Our planet isn't overcrowded because of too much breeding but indeed because far too many elderly cling to life. Humans have simply stopped dying like flies.

Well it's this or start killing old people, so I think I'll deal with the economic backlash, as long as we do this at a manageable rate.

[kaid]

That only works if the world in general isn't ALSO undergoing the same phenomena.

And the main reason for this immigration level is to effectively sustain things. Governments don't wish to admit their country is full of old people and not children.

And for the sake of the world it needs to keep happening. Population got very out of hand and it needs to shrink and keep shrinking for a good long while to get back to a more sustainable population level. Is there going to be pain demographically while this happens yes. Immigration tends to buffer the issue mostly because poor people from poor countries have more kids. This changes as they become more prosperous but currently there are plenty of nations in south america still seeing really high birth rates that are immigrating here.

The countries that have very strict immigration policies such as japan are the ones encountering some really ugly demographic cliffs that could be pretty easily mitigated if they culturally would chose to do it.

[artemishunter1]

And for the sake of the world it needs to keep happening. Population got very out of hand and it needs to shrink and keep shrinking for a good long while to get back to a more sustainable population level. Is there going to be pain demographically while this happens yes. Immigration tends to buffer the issue mostly because poor people from poor countries have more kids. This changes as they become more prosperous but currently there are plenty of nations in south america still seeing really high birth rates that are immigrating here.

The countries that have very strict immigration policies such as japan are the ones encountering some really ugly demographic cliffs that could be pretty easily mitigated if they culturally would chose to do it.

but japanese people would end. What is the point of building prosperity if at the end of the day your race will go extinct? Think of this, the japanese people would die out due to low birth rate, immigrants come in and take the prosperous job, the japanese people still die. So, whats the point here? Is immigrants enjoying BETTER lifestyle in Japan the point here?

- - - Updated - - -

In an ideal world where we actually can, yes. A single parent who had their spouse pass away or leave while taking care of several kids isn't going to be able to save up that much on a run of the mill job income.

To live 'comfortably' while not being wealthy, say you need 35k a year, as old people tend to need medicines and so on, that'l let them have a small house but not a whole lotta extras.

If you live from 65 (retirement age) to 80, you'd have to save up 525,000 dollars to do that. Half a million dollars.



.. what? A proper parent doesn't want to bring up a kid without having the income or the means to properly raise them, that's understandable. Why jump straight to assuming they want everything paid for? Also, if the great fear of economical collapse is there if people aren't having more kids (Point of many posts in this thread), then shouldn't there be proper protect/support for those having them?

Here is thing. We do not have that money to subside the women. If we had, would not we spend that money on the old people in the FIRST place? You are asking to spend money on young people, so we don't have to spend money on old people.

[Mafic]

The bubble is going to burst, the stack of cards is going to come crashing down.

Long overdue for a correction of how the U.S. structure from the top and all the way down will be rebuilt.

[artemishunter1]

Yup pretty much this. Keep immigration rates high enough to buffer the shock of the lower birth rates until you can gradually ratchet down the population to better levels.

- - - Updated - - -



If you are barely scraping by paycheck to pay check and you have not gotten noticeable raises in decades something has to go and that currently is savings for retirement. No point saving for later if you need it right now to live.

quality of immigrants needs to matter. Your unskilled immigrants are state wards, they do not replace the tax payers such as docots.

[Wolfheart9]

but japanese people would end. What is the point of building prosperity if at the end of the day your race will go extinct? Think of this, the japanese people would die out due to low birth rate, immigrants come in and take the prosperous job, the japanese people still die. So, whats the point here? Is immigrants enjoying BETTER lifestyle in Japan the point here?

- - - Updated - - -



Here is thing. We do not have that money to subside the women. If we had, would not we spend that money on the old people in the FIRST place? You are asking to spend money on young people, so we don't have to spend money on old people.

Where, in any of this, did I say anything about subsidizing women? In fact where in any of this did I say anything about women period?

[Theodarzna]

And for the sake of the world it needs to keep happening. Population got very out of hand and it needs to shrink and keep shrinking for a good long while to get back to a more sustainable population level. Is there going to be pain demographically while this happens yes. Immigration tends to buffer the issue mostly because poor people from poor countries have more kids. This changes as they become more prosperous but currently there are plenty of nations in south america still seeing really high birth rates that are immigrating here.

The countries that have very strict immigration policies such as japan are the ones encountering some really ugly demographic cliffs that could be pretty easily mitigated if they culturally would chose to do it.

It has only gotten out of hand if you consider American levels of consumption to be the absolute norm. And actually South America is experiencing a brutal decline in fertility, also were will those countries hoover people up from?

- - - Updated - - -

but japanese people would end. What is the point of building prosperity if at the end of the day your race will go extinct? Think of this, the japanese people would die out due to low birth rate, immigrants come in and take the prosperous job, the japanese people still die. So, whats the point here? Is immigrants enjoying BETTER lifestyle in Japan the point here?

If anything its better socially to just endure it without needing immigrants so as to allow wages to increase and prosperity at the bottom to begin to emerge.

[Astronom]

but japanese people would end. What is the point of building prosperity if at the end of the day your race will go extinct?

Of course at some point the birth rate in Japan is going to pick up. And massive immigration into Japan would be a very bad idea.

[Mafic]

Of course at some point the birth rate in Japan is going to pick up. And massive immigration into Japan would be a very bad idea.

Not happening anytime soon.

Japan is beyond the point of return in the next decade or so.

[hrugner]

We've made far too many concessions to the infatuation with immediacy. We simply don't value anything that doesn't pay off for individuals in their own life time, even science and tech research is taking a hit due to the time required to generate real value from speculative advancements. We've gone so far that people believe not having and/or raising children is prudent rather than childish and short sighted. It wouldn't be impossible to ensure wealth and status for those who inject quality into the next generation, but we've steadily moved away from that goal.

[Theodarzna]

Not happening anytime soon.

Japan is beyond the point of return in the next decade or so.

Japan, in my view, will be the first to bounce back from this.

They have wisely forgone the immigration measures to sustain their economy and are simply allowing things the decline. Once the elderly die off from their economic positions and things get bad enough the government will be forced to both make corrective policies but also society will be forced to make corrective policies.

A thing to remember is that ideal fertility rate in all these various places is still 2, but economic policy ect creates distortions.