6 ms·

I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of 30. The window to actually have them gets pretty tight, a mother aged 35 or older

I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of 30. The window to actually have them gets pretty tight, a mother aged 35 or older is considered a geriatric mother on the NHS (basically higher risk). I'm sure that a lot of my friends are going to find it difficult to have children as they get older, in contrast to parents in the 80s and 90s who were mostly having their first child in their 20s. From my anecdotal perspective it feels like we are going to see population growth flatlining and global population starting to decline over the next 100 years. It feels like the data is moving in that way to back that up. This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing?

ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago
I don't think it's just anecdotal, some data suggests this is happening. The book 'Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline' talks about this. The only place in the world with high total fertility rate is now subsaharan Africa, even countries you might think have a lot of children don't really anymore. China is well known to have a low TFR now, but even India appears to have reached replacement level, although something called population momentum will mean population continues to increase for a couple more decades, and then decline.
- yters 7y ago
  We in the West are doing our best to make their populations decline too, through contraception, abortion and disrupting their traditional structures. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memora...
- aitchnyu 7y ago
  The states with better human rights, medicine have gone below replacement while the others have not progressed. South India with ever-lower voter share is becoming irrelevant to national politics, in effect a punishment. https://scroll.in/article/865569/indian-population-is-growing-much-faster-in-the-north-and-the-south-is-paying-the-price https://scroll.in/article/865569/indian-population-is-growin...
momokoko 7y ago
It could be more a product of the current economic system that requires both parents work full time jobs and have a career path. Its possible that in the future we could see a different system that actually increases birth rates. Also, demand for fertility techniques for couples over 35 is going to drive a lot of research into that area.
- bluGill 7y ago
  It isn't the economic system, it is the lifestyle. I know a number of families where one parent stays home with the kids and they do fine. They don't "keep up with the jone's", but they have enough to eat and a warm roof. (Interestingly, in half those families it is dad staying home while mom works) This is a subtle difference, but I think it is important.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    It does sound like an economic system still. Anecdotal evidence, but of the people I know, those that can afford single-income household with kids are those with pretty high income, or eligible to social support, or really running two-income home with one person doing work in the "hidden economy" (e.g. gigs, or trading stuff via Facebook groups). "Just enough to eat and a warm roof" is pretty much the definition of living in poverty in the western world; no surprise people don't want to settle for that.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      The vast majority of the population has chosen that lifestyle. mrmoneymustache.com lives a modest lifestyle and is able to afford it - he is also clear about all the luxuries he has to skip to do it.
nerdponx 7y ago
This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? 1. There is so much waste and distributional inefficiency in our global economy that there is plenty of room for growth by correcting these 2. Fewer people means that less growth is required to maintain and continue to improve living standards 3. Human capital isn't disappearing, its rate of appearance is slowing; there will always be new humans unless the global birth rate goes lower than the global death rate and stays that way for a long time 4. Human productivity is becoming decreasingly dependent on human capital over time
- arvinsim 7y ago
  > 4. Human productivity is becoming decreasingly dependent on human capital over time From what I observed, increased human productivity doesn't translate to less working time. You work the same time but you just produce more.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    It's one of the most predictable features of capitalism that after a while any productivity gain becomes widespread, and on doing so its profits are distributed among consumers, not producers.
    - gjm11 7y ago
      Distributed among consumers (via price reductions) and via _owners_ (via profit increases). Those graphs you've probably seen showing that the richest ~1% of the population owns an ever-increasing fraction of the assets suggest that quite a lot is going to owners rather than to consumers.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      This prediction ignores the probably best-funded area of research on the planet, that is inventing ever more complex business models in order to retain the gains instead of distributing them.
Arbalest 7y ago
I still think this notion of saving up (401(k) and superannuation) is going to fall in a heap. What good is money if no one is around to do the work? Demand will increase and all that saved up money is killed by inflation. The government is going to have to step in anyway, and do what it always did with pensions. That is, redistribute tax to care for people who are limited in their ability to do it themselves... because the tax will represent current labour than the false notion of nebulous saved "value".
- imtringued 7y ago
  Government redistribution won't work because it will just result in even more inflation. The only solution is to bring those people back into the workforce.
dotancohen 7y ago
> going to see population growth flatlining and global population starting to decline Western population growth is flatlining. I have Beduin neighbours, who I have terrific relations with, who have over twenty children each. Some have over thirty, like the guy I buy my gas from. Some have more than that. One guy that I know of, but have not met, is mentioned every time the subject comes up. If the Wikipedia list of most children had less of a Western slant, then he would be around number sixty on that list.
- tapland 7y ago
  Your neighbors would hit the Wikipedia list of people with the most children? Children per woman is a more relevant metric.
  - dotancohen 7y ago
    I do know that the one with 53 children (last time I heard, which was about a year ago, so the number has gone up) had more than the "allowed" four wives. I do not know enough about Beduin culture to tell you if he just went over the limit, or divorced, or what. I'll ask.
- watwut 7y ago
  How many wife's produced over 30 children? That aint gonna be one.
  - dotancohen 7y ago
    Probably four. I'll ask next time I'm there.
- turk73 7y ago
  Apparently your Bedouin neighbors had terrific relations with a lot of women! Anyways, just mindless breeding isn't exactly a cherished quality. It's not like any of them are going to cure cancer or start up the next SpaceX.
rayiner 7y ago
It’s not really that narrow. Historically, people had an extended reproductive window. Elizabeth Schuyler (Alexander Hamilton’s wife) had half her kids after 35, three of them after 40. Risk goes up, but it’s still pretty low through the 30s. The NHS labeling is based on the medical community’s attitude of reducing risk at all costs, without regard to cost-benefit analysis.
menzoic 7y ago
> How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? The majority of the population does low or unskilled labor. This can be replaced by machines. Reduced focus on low skill work will also give more time to the individual which could foster more innovation. The future may have less people, but if technology removes the need for basic work, then it could end up that in absolute numbers the relatively small future population could have more advanced human workers than today's population.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  In theory, machines should make the everyday man work less. In practice, the one who holds the capital captures the value. The everyday man ends up working the same or even more.
arvinsim 7y ago
> This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? Our current economic system will need to adapt or change entirely. It can't remain as is. The hard part is figuring out how and convince the 1% to cooperate.
- turk73 7y ago
  They aren't going to. Hence we get a flood of 3rd Worlders let in. It's a mess.
raxxorrax 7y ago
People without children become financially saturated very quickly. Those will dampen growth again.
lm28469 7y ago
> I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of 30. We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids and be competitive anymore. Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get back to work and kiss them goodnight. Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests. Sprinkle a bit of consumerism over that and it's game over, kids are too expensive, why would people do that instead of buying a nice car, the new $2k smartphone or a trip to Venice to flex on instagram for imaginary internet points. I'm also inclined to believe that the hookup culture plays a huge role in the trend, why would you want to settle down when you have a virtually limitless pool of potentially better mates available at the tips of your fingers. Newer generations are afraid of commitment and responsibilities, having kids in your early 20s is more stigmatised than having a one night stand every other night until you're 40.
- refurb 7y ago
  Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests. This is really true. It was just assumed that the “right” goal for women was the same career focus as men have always had. It won’t surprise me if that changes in the future once families realize the cost of it.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I think it will change in the future, not once families realize the cost, but because families that have already valued kids have kids while those that didn't realize the cost die out.
    - jacquesc 7y ago
      That doesn't mean the kids will necessarily adopt the values of their parents.
Bakary 7y ago
Growth will have to stop anyway at some point because the world is limited and it'll be a while until we can mine the solar system. Either that or the notion of growth will stop mattering (we enter a simulation, post-scarcity society, or society collapses) As they say it's easier to picture the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
rb808 7y ago
Most people still do have their first child in their (admittedly late) 20s. > The average age of first-time mothers was 28.6 years in 2015, compared with 28.5 years in 2014. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsbyparentscharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2015 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago

I don't think it's just anecdotal, some data suggests this is happening. The book 'Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline' talks about this. The only place in the world with high total fertility rate is now subsaharan Africa, even countries you might think have a lot of children don't really anymore. China is well known to have a low TFR now, but even India appears to have reached replacement level, although something called population momentum will mean population continues to increase for a couple more decades, and then decline.

yters 7y ago
We in the West are doing our best to make their populations decline too, through contraception, abortion and disrupting their traditional structures. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memora...
aitchnyu 7y ago
The states with better human rights, medicine have gone below replacement while the others have not progressed. South India with ever-lower voter share is becoming irrelevant to national politics, in effect a punishment. https://scroll.in/article/865569/indian-population-is-growing-much-faster-in-the-north-and-the-south-is-paying-the-price https://scroll.in/article/865569/indian-population-is-growin...

momokoko 7y ago

It could be more a product of the current economic system that requires both parents work full time jobs and have a career path. Its possible that in the future we could see a different system that actually increases birth rates. Also, demand for fertility techniques for couples over 35 is going to drive a lot of research into that area.

bluGill 7y ago
It isn't the economic system, it is the lifestyle. I know a number of families where one parent stays home with the kids and they do fine. They don't "keep up with the jone's", but they have enough to eat and a warm roof. (Interestingly, in half those families it is dad staying home while mom works) This is a subtle difference, but I think it is important.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It does sound like an economic system still. Anecdotal evidence, but of the people I know, those that can afford single-income household with kids are those with pretty high income, or eligible to social support, or really running two-income home with one person doing work in the "hidden economy" (e.g. gigs, or trading stuff via Facebook groups). "Just enough to eat and a warm roof" is pretty much the definition of living in poverty in the western world; no surprise people don't want to settle for that.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    The vast majority of the population has chosen that lifestyle. mrmoneymustache.com lives a modest lifestyle and is able to afford it - he is also clear about all the luxuries he has to skip to do it.

nerdponx 7y ago

This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? 1. There is so much waste and distributional inefficiency in our global economy that there is plenty of room for growth by correcting these 2. Fewer people means that less growth is required to maintain and continue to improve living standards 3. Human capital isn't disappearing, its rate of appearance is slowing; there will always be new humans unless the global birth rate goes lower than the global death rate and stays that way for a long time 4. Human productivity is becoming decreasingly dependent on human capital over time

arvinsim 7y ago
> 4. Human productivity is becoming decreasingly dependent on human capital over time From what I observed, increased human productivity doesn't translate to less working time. You work the same time but you just produce more.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  It's one of the most predictable features of capitalism that after a while any productivity gain becomes widespread, and on doing so its profits are distributed among consumers, not producers.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    Distributed among consumers (via price reductions) and via _owners_ (via profit increases). Those graphs you've probably seen showing that the richest ~1% of the population owns an ever-increasing fraction of the assets suggest that quite a lot is going to owners rather than to consumers.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    This prediction ignores the probably best-funded area of research on the planet, that is inventing ever more complex business models in order to retain the gains instead of distributing them.

Arbalest 7y ago

I still think this notion of saving up (401(k) and superannuation) is going to fall in a heap. What good is money if no one is around to do the work? Demand will increase and all that saved up money is killed by inflation. The government is going to have to step in anyway, and do what it always did with pensions. That is, redistribute tax to care for people who are limited in their ability to do it themselves... because the tax will represent current labour than the false notion of nebulous saved "value".

imtringued 7y ago
Government redistribution won't work because it will just result in even more inflation. The only solution is to bring those people back into the workforce.

dotancohen 7y ago

> going to see population growth flatlining and global population starting to decline Western population growth is flatlining. I have Beduin neighbours, who I have terrific relations with, who have over twenty children each. Some have over thirty, like the guy I buy my gas from. Some have more than that. One guy that I know of, but have not met, is mentioned every time the subject comes up. If the Wikipedia list of most children had less of a Western slant, then he would be around number sixty on that list.

tapland 7y ago
Your neighbors would hit the Wikipedia list of people with the most children? Children per woman is a more relevant metric.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  I do know that the one with 53 children (last time I heard, which was about a year ago, so the number has gone up) had more than the "allowed" four wives. I do not know enough about Beduin culture to tell you if he just went over the limit, or divorced, or what. I'll ask.
watwut 7y ago
How many wife's produced over 30 children? That aint gonna be one.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  Probably four. I'll ask next time I'm there.
turk73 7y ago
Apparently your Bedouin neighbors had terrific relations with a lot of women! Anyways, just mindless breeding isn't exactly a cherished quality. It's not like any of them are going to cure cancer or start up the next SpaceX.

rayiner 7y ago

It’s not really that narrow. Historically, people had an extended reproductive window. Elizabeth Schuyler (Alexander Hamilton’s wife) had half her kids after 35, three of them after 40. Risk goes up, but it’s still pretty low through the 30s. The NHS labeling is based on the medical community’s attitude of reducing risk at all costs, without regard to cost-benefit analysis.

menzoic 7y ago

> How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? The majority of the population does low or unskilled labor. This can be replaced by machines. Reduced focus on low skill work will also give more time to the individual which could foster more innovation. The future may have less people, but if technology removes the need for basic work, then it could end up that in absolute numbers the relatively small future population could have more advanced human workers than today's population.

arvinsim 7y ago
In theory, machines should make the everyday man work less. In practice, the one who holds the capital captures the value. The everyday man ends up working the same or even more.

arvinsim 7y ago

> This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing? Our current economic system will need to adapt or change entirely. It can't remain as is. The hard part is figuring out how and convince the 1% to cooperate.

turk73 7y ago
They aren't going to. Hence we get a flood of 3rd Worlders let in. It's a mess.

raxxorrax 7y ago

People without children become financially saturated very quickly. Those will dampen growth again.

lm28469 7y ago

> I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of 30. We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids and be competitive anymore. Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get back to work and kiss them goodnight. Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests. Sprinkle a bit of consumerism over that and it's game over, kids are too expensive, why would people do that instead of buying a nice car, the new $2k smartphone or a trip to Venice to flex on instagram for imaginary internet points. I'm also inclined to believe that the hookup culture plays a huge role in the trend, why would you want to settle down when you have a virtually limitless pool of potentially better mates available at the tips of your fingers. Newer generations are afraid of commitment and responsibilities, having kids in your early 20s is more stigmatised than having a one night stand every other night until you're 40.

refurb 7y ago
Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests. This is really true. It was just assumed that the “right” goal for women was the same career focus as men have always had. It won’t surprise me if that changes in the future once families realize the cost of it.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I think it will change in the future, not once families realize the cost, but because families that have already valued kids have kids while those that didn't realize the cost die out.
  - jacquesc 7y ago
    That doesn't mean the kids will necessarily adopt the values of their parents.

Bakary 7y ago

Growth will have to stop anyway at some point because the world is limited and it'll be a while until we can mine the solar system. Either that or the notion of growth will stop mattering (we enter a simulation, post-scarcity society, or society collapses) As they say it's easier to picture the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

rb808 7y ago

Most people still do have their first child in their (admittedly late) 20s. > The average age of first-time mothers was 28.6 years in 2015, compared with 28.5 years in 2014. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsbyparentscharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2015 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...