6 ms·

> higher birth rates equal more economic growth The empirical data doesn't support this. The nations with the strongest economies are also the nations with amo

> higher birth rates equal more economic growth The empirical data doesn't support this. The nations with the strongest economies are also the nations with among the lowest birth rates, and it has been that way for decades. To highlight one specific example, China's birth rate fell even as its economy took off over the past 30 years. And they did not experience high rates of immigration either.

buboard 8y ago
Maybe it is "periods with higher birth rates", such as the baby boom. standard disclaimers about correlation not correlating with causation apply both ways.
irrational 8y ago
There must be some point where that reverses. If China's population dropped to 1 million people I would assume it would no longer have one of the strongest economies. The question is, where is the reversal point between 1 billion and 1 million?
- jpatokal 8y ago
  China has been enjoying the "demographic dividend" of having lots of young working-age people without retired parents or children to support. It's now in a race against time to get rich before the ratio reverses and the country's demographics turns into an accelerated version of Japan or Korea.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  If their population dropped from 1b to 1m immediately, right now, then yes that would be a disaster. But imagine that their population falls slowly, as automation increases their per-capita productivity. Imagine a future China with 1 million people, but the average person can produce 1,000x the economic value that the average person can today.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
I'd call China an outlier. (1) It's size isn't comparable to any other. (2) It's not a First World'er in the same "mature" way USA or Germany, is. (3) It's growth is driven by all the counties it serves. Regardless of what happens internally, the world economy is the driver. (4) Again, Japan is - at least in the eyes of USA and German politicians, economists, etc. the most likely fear-driver.
munificent 8y ago
I don't think we have enough longitudinal data for a claim like this. It's probably a short-term good to zero out your birthrate. That way you have tons of working age people who aren't busy being parents and can do economically useful labor. But in forty years when those people get too old to work and there's no younger generation to replace them (and take care of them), you're gonna have a really bad time. My hunch is that contraception is still new enough that countries like the US haven't quite reached the "have a really bad time" side of that curve, but we are fast approaching it. It's going to be rough in the US when all the Boomers retire and start consuming healthcare while there aren't enough young people paying into Social Security to support it.
- marchenko 8y ago
  The short-term benefit of a lower birthrate is called the "demographic dividend". Think of it like a Golden Age in the Civilization video game series. If you fail to fully capitalize on it, you are storing away trouble.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Well, health care for senior citizens is paid for by Medicare, but I believe that's actually in worse shape?
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Comparative data is useful if we are examining the claim that "higher birth rates equal more economic growth," which is quite a broad claim. Looking at nation-level data, there's no correlation that I can find between recent birth rates and recent economic growth. You're addressing a different, more specific question, which is "what will happen to a nation with a strong economy when their birth rate declines?" Answering this is more dependent on longitudinal data. It's fine if you think there's not enough data yet, although I'll point out that that should preclude you from making predictions too... > It's going to be rough in the US when all the Boomers retire and start consuming healthcare while there aren't enough young people paying into Social Security to support it. There is really nothing about Social Security that depends on a certain ratio of people. The only things that need to match are the intakes and outlays, in dollars. If a shrinking working population is accompanied by sufficient productivity growth, total economic output will continue to grow and Social Security will remain solvent. I wouldn't worry about the Boomers specifically; they're already outnumbered about 2:1 by Gen X plus Millenials, and that ratio is growing as older Boomers start to pass away.
jm__87 8y ago
How do you get economic growth? People need to buy more things. An individual only eat so much food, drives so many cars, buys so much clothing, has so many dentists, lawyers and accountants, consumes so many advertisements, pays for so many utilities, etc. So how to grow sales of all these things? Increase the number of people.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  You increase the value of the things. I had one car 20 years ago; I have one car today. The car I have today is far safer and more capable. It also cost more. It also took fewer humans to manufacture it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
misja111 8y ago
I googled a bit, and it even seems that the reverse is true: higher birth rates hamper economic growth! https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.89.1.110?journalCode=rest https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.89.1.1...

buboard 8y ago

Maybe it is "periods with higher birth rates", such as the baby boom. standard disclaimers about correlation not correlating with causation apply both ways.

irrational 8y ago

There must be some point where that reverses. If China's population dropped to 1 million people I would assume it would no longer have one of the strongest economies. The question is, where is the reversal point between 1 billion and 1 million?

jpatokal 8y ago
China has been enjoying the "demographic dividend" of having lots of young working-age people without retired parents or children to support. It's now in a race against time to get rich before the ratio reverses and the country's demographics turns into an accelerated version of Japan or Korea.
snowwrestler 8y ago
If their population dropped from 1b to 1m immediately, right now, then yes that would be a disaster. But imagine that their population falls slowly, as automation increases their per-capita productivity. Imagine a future China with 1 million people, but the average person can produce 1,000x the economic value that the average person can today.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

I'd call China an outlier. (1) It's size isn't comparable to any other. (2) It's not a First World'er in the same "mature" way USA or Germany, is. (3) It's growth is driven by all the counties it serves. Regardless of what happens internally, the world economy is the driver. (4) Again, Japan is - at least in the eyes of USA and German politicians, economists, etc. the most likely fear-driver.

munificent 8y ago

I don't think we have enough longitudinal data for a claim like this. It's probably a short-term good to zero out your birthrate. That way you have tons of working age people who aren't busy being parents and can do economically useful labor. But in forty years when those people get too old to work and there's no younger generation to replace them (and take care of them), you're gonna have a really bad time. My hunch is that contraception is still new enough that countries like the US haven't quite reached the "have a really bad time" side of that curve, but we are fast approaching it. It's going to be rough in the US when all the Boomers retire and start consuming healthcare while there aren't enough young people paying into Social Security to support it.

marchenko 8y ago
The short-term benefit of a lower birthrate is called the "demographic dividend". Think of it like a Golden Age in the Civilization video game series. If you fail to fully capitalize on it, you are storing away trouble.
skybrian 8y ago
Well, health care for senior citizens is paid for by Medicare, but I believe that's actually in worse shape?
snowwrestler 8y ago
Comparative data is useful if we are examining the claim that "higher birth rates equal more economic growth," which is quite a broad claim. Looking at nation-level data, there's no correlation that I can find between recent birth rates and recent economic growth. You're addressing a different, more specific question, which is "what will happen to a nation with a strong economy when their birth rate declines?" Answering this is more dependent on longitudinal data. It's fine if you think there's not enough data yet, although I'll point out that that should preclude you from making predictions too... > It's going to be rough in the US when all the Boomers retire and start consuming healthcare while there aren't enough young people paying into Social Security to support it. There is really nothing about Social Security that depends on a certain ratio of people. The only things that need to match are the intakes and outlays, in dollars. If a shrinking working population is accompanied by sufficient productivity growth, total economic output will continue to grow and Social Security will remain solvent. I wouldn't worry about the Boomers specifically; they're already outnumbered about 2:1 by Gen X plus Millenials, and that ratio is growing as older Boomers start to pass away.

jm__87 8y ago

How do you get economic growth? People need to buy more things. An individual only eat so much food, drives so many cars, buys so much clothing, has so many dentists, lawyers and accountants, consumes so many advertisements, pays for so many utilities, etc. So how to grow sales of all these things? Increase the number of people.

snowwrestler 8y ago
You increase the value of the things. I had one car 20 years ago; I have one car today. The car I have today is far safer and more capable. It also cost more. It also took fewer humans to manufacture it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

misja111 8y ago

I googled a bit, and it even seems that the reverse is true: higher birth rates hamper economic growth! https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.89.1.110?journalCode=rest https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.89.1.1...