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

[Forogil]

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.

Some believe that people not dying like flies is a good thing.

You forgot that lower fertility rate means fewer kids in school, college, etc. Thus the total percentage of workers vs non-workers is not influenced as you might believe. It is also to a large extent a problem with statistics - we look at GDP growth - and with fewer people GDP will decrease, if GDP per capita stays the same.

However, US is already at total fertility rate 1.87 - below the UK, and clearly below replacement fertility rate in the US.

[unbound]

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.

This is a fairly common response to the prior response. The primary problem with this response is that it ignores the elephant in the room...that we already have too many people on this planet to responsibly sustain. Worrying about short-term economics is a very weak reason to ignore the elephant. As for the specifics, there definitely will be pain initially regarding taxes to take care of the elderly, but that is a short-term problem, not a long-term one; and less consumer spending/less demand resulting in less jobs is actually not an issue since there are fewer people looking for jobs anyways. The only real economic-related problem is that the super-rich will see a decline in the rate of their wealth growth, or possibly even not being quite as rich as they once were...and I'm not shedding a tear for them; they'll still be outrageously rich.

In regards to your last sentence, that is actually inaccurate. The primary problem is that far too many people survive childhood. The average lifespan went up not because people live substantially longer into old age (i.e. once you got to adulthood a hundred years ago, you lived almost as long as you do today)...the average lifespan went up because nearly every child born reaches adulthood today. Because we don't lose children like we did a hundred years ago...which is the time that the world population really started exploding (we reached 1 billion around 1804, 2 billion around 1927, 3 billion in 1960, and adding a billion from there every 13 years on average).

[Theodarzna]

This is a fairly common response to the prior response. The primary problem with this response is that it ignores the elephant in the room...that we already have too many people on this planet to responsibly sustain. Worrying about short-term economics is a very weak reason to ignore the elephant. As for the specifics, there definitely will be pain initially regarding taxes to take care of the elderly, but that is a short-term problem, not a long-term one; and less consumer spending/less demand resulting in less jobs is actually not an issue since there are fewer people looking for jobs anyways. The only real economic-related problem is that the super-rich will see a decline in the rate of their wealth growth, or possibly even not being quite as rich as they once were...and I'm not shedding a tear for them; they'll still be outrageously rich.

In regards to your last sentence, that is actually inaccurate. The primary problem is that far too many people survive childhood. The average lifespan went up not because people live substantially longer into old age (i.e. once you got to adulthood a hundred years ago, you lived almost as long as you do today)...the average lifespan went up because nearly every child born reaches adulthood today. Because we don't lose children like we did a hundred years ago...which is the time that the world population really started exploding (we reached 1 billion around 1804, 2 billion around 1927, 3 billion in 1960, and adding a billion from there every 13 years on average).

It is actually a worry about long term economic problems. As populations decline in a region, either as an effect of low fertility rates or emigration, the exodus leaves in its wake fewer and fewer qualified participants for the workforce. The working-age population in Japan has been steadily decreasing since 1995, and its economy has been contracting in step with that trend. If industries are unable to find workers, they will be unable to meet levels of output necessary to stay in business. The long and short of it is: they won't produce any more stuff. And no stuff, means no money, means no more business. The labor shortage also feeds a consumer shortage. The maxim in business has it that the customer is always right. But, who's right when you have no customer? That's the biggest threat to businesses in areas faced with mounting depopulation: the lack of demanding customers. Either customer bases have fled to other, thriving regions, or those that remain are so impoverished they can't afford to splurge. Businesses unable to pay their rent are forced to close down, and each shuttering causes a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. So you get a self feeding looping or a downward spiraling snowball effect. Now think about the macro-economic problems of first would countries beyond just labor shortages. Think about innovation based economies, were does the majority of innovation come from? Overwhelmingly its the young that innovate all the new big ideas that sustain this wonderland we live in.

More over there is the issue of WHO will exist. So its not that there will be a period of just geezers ruling the earth, but indeed the future will belong only to the highly religious and ultra-conservative. Decreasing demand, decreasing numbers of young people and labor problems actual all forge a long term trajectory downward, plus without all those excited new innovators we will likely lack the technical skill and prowess we once had in the future when we will need technical skills to maintain or even grow our society.

I think it is not the Apocalypse but I think its a problem we should try to deal with, before it deals with us.

[Deleted]

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.

The people who make those economic arguments never point out that with a stable or declining population, you have far smaller needs for government infrastructural investment, and less of a burden on the younger generation to finance the construction of new houses. The idea of a lack of jobs is largely laughable; the idea behind having a job is to be able to provide for yourself and your family. We live in a time when machines are taking over production, with fairly minimal human labour, and producing for the needs of the population at large becomes easier all the time. The problem is that we have reduced human input in production but not reduced the expected workload of individual working people, leading to a smaller comfortable middle class, a burgeoning class of new poor, and a small but expanding category of the ultra-rich. What is needed is a re-thinking of the economy. Why should working people today create the same output as 5 people 50 years ago for less money than 1 person in the 60s, while the uper echelons of the corporate world get paid 50 times as much as their counterparts back then?

[starlord]

birth rates arent going to go up until the cost & difficulty of raising children goes down. that means more social programs, which we are all about cutting in the U.S.

[Theodarzna]

The people who make those economic arguments never point out that with a stable or declining population, you have far smaller needs for government infrastructural investment, and less of a burden on the younger generation to finance the construction of new houses. The idea of a lack of jobs is largely laughable; the idea behind having a job is to be able to provide for yourself and your family. We live in a time when machines are taking over production, with fairly minimal human labour, and producing for the needs of the population at large becomes easier all the time. The problem is that we have reduced human input in production but not reduced the expected workload of individual working people, leading to a smaller comfortable middle class, a burgeoning class of new poor, and a small but expanding category of the ultra-rich. What is needed is a re-thinking of the economy. Why should working people today create the same output as 5 people 50 years ago for less money than 1 person in the 60s, while the uper echelons of the corporate world get paid 50 times as much as their counterparts back then?

You have smaller needs, which is absolutely true.

But you do not have uniform stability. For example you have the need to take care of old people, often separated by vast distances, you have the economic blighting of the hinterlands as what few young people there are go to the cities as the last places of economic vitality, you do have overcrowding and strain on the cities that become overburdened and you have discontent in the depopulated areas as cash strapped governments cut off vital services and essentially render these places stranded.

You make an excellent point about the economics of it all in the end. There is a vast distortion between how much we expect people to work, versus the raw amount of work there actually is to do.

[Astronom]

It is actually a worry about long term economic problems..

You're assuming here the only factors behind economic growth are labor and capital. If that were so then yes provided you kept the population growing forever you could maintain economic growth forever, as you seem to imply. But unfortunately I strongly suspect the main factor is energy. Its cheap fossil fuel energy which has been largely responsible for the incredible economic growth we've seen over the past century or more. Increasing the population in the face of diminishing fossil fuels will only make things worse for everyone.

[Wolfheart9]

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.

[breadisfunny]

More banging but not more kids? Not necessarily a bad thing.

until 20-30 years later and you have to support an overwhelming number of old people. and the number of replacements isn't enough to keep the system running smoothly. society starts to go rapidly downhill then. unless you want to start sending old people to "old people camps" or force them to work beyond age 65.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

until 20-30 years later and you have to support an overwhelming number of old people. and the number of replacements isn't enough to keep the system running smoothly. society starts to go rapidly downhill then. unless you want to start sending old people to "old people camps" or force them to work beyond age 65.

My grandfather is 70 and going strong, working all day long!

[Forogil]

My grandfather is 70 and going strong, working all day long!

Not odd, people are not only living longer in general - but also staying healthier longer.

Thus many countries are increasing the retirement age, e.g. US is gradually increasing it from 65 to 67.

[Bytch]

Stop injecting the vaccines and GMO's into your body = more babies. When the Govt allows corporations making GMO plants and food stuffs that can not reproduce themselves, how does that bode for humans?

[Wulfey]

I didn't use so many damned condoms maybe there would be more kids.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

It's almost as if we should not rely on other people to take care of us as being elderly, or solely rely on government assistance for survival. Oh wait.

[Wolfheart9]

It's almost as if we should not rely on other people to take care of us as being elderly, or solely rely on government assistance for survival. Oh wait.

Out of curiosity and I'm sure this is a bad idea to ask.. but if other people don't help, what are the elderly to do? Die?

[MasterOfNone]

Out of curiosity and I'm sure this is a bad idea to ask.. but if other people don't help, what are the elderly to do? Die?

Do you not agree that people should structure their lives in a way that will result in them living comfortably as an elderly person without assistance from the government.

[I Push Buttons]

birth rates arent going to go up until the cost & difficulty of raising children goes down. that means more social programs, which we are all about cutting in the U.S.

Translated: Women aren't going to have more kids until the government fully subsidizes their entire life to make it as if they worked the whole time instead of having kids.

[Wolfheart9]

Do you not agree that people should structure their lives in a way that will result in them living comfortably as an elderly person without assistance from the government.

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.

Translated: Women aren't going to have more kids until the government fully subsidizes their entire life to make it as if they worked the whole time instead of having kids.

.. 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?

[MasterOfNone]

My wife's retirement alone will be greater than that alone. We aren't independently wealthy. Just responsible.

[I Push Buttons]

Do you not agree that people should structure their lives in a way that will result in them living comfortably as an elderly person without assistance from the government.

Do you not agree that huge numbers of people don't even make enough money to live comfortably in their "youth," let alone make enough money to support themselves in their old age?

I use quotes with "youth" as I don't mean young, I just mean, not elderly.