4 ms·

Not just 'the West'. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-21/chinas-population-is-inexorably-shrinking-planet-population-turn/101873032 https://www.abc.net.au/n

• jojobas 3y ago
  Japan has embraced everything West starting 1868. China outright banned having more than 1 kid and people aborted girls en masse. This one I grant an exemption.
  • huytersd 3y ago
    It’s not just China and Japan. India is under replacement rate as well.
• 7thaccount 3y ago
  Zeihan (geopolitics celebrity dude) talks about this pretty often. It goes hand in hand with urbanization. When you're on the farm and especially when child mortality is high...you have lots of kids as they're needed for work. In the big city, kids are just a costly burden, so people have a lot less. All the countries that jumped into urbanization are in this boat. China, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and Japan are all in a really bad spot. It's not that they just ran out of kids...it's that they ran out 30 years ago. It's in this decade that they start running out of working age adults and shit starts getting really screwy. There isn't a known macroeconomic model for when the population pyramid is inverted and there is no money at the top to invest in new tech (it's all being used for them to live off of) and not enough people at the bottom to work or drive consumption.
  • nostrademons 3y ago
    There is, it's feudalism. The dynamic is that when markets are expanding, it makes sense to invest in the future, because you can capture a portion of the expansion and the reap indefinite profits off of it. When markets are contracting, your incentive becomes to grab as much of the pie now before it shrinks. This tends to make firms...well, militant. The incentive to cooperate only appears when people weight the future more than the present, giving value to future interactions; otherwise, the incentive is to kill off your rivals, take their stuff, and hide the bodies. Thus, during a contraction and in times of scarcity people tend to become raiders, scavengers, and conquerors. To protect themselves against raiders, scavengers, and conquerors, people tend to band together into larger groups. Thus a hierarchy emerges - weaker groups pledge fealty to stronger ones, which in turn protect them from other strong groups that have not pledged fealty, and so on. Usually you get war in the meantime, but feudalism is the peace treaty that arises out of that. Interestingly this dynamic tends to play out within the capitalist system. When an industry reaches maturity, usually there's a shakeout with a price war where many of the weaker companies go bankrupt, and then the savvier-but-weaker get bought up by the bigger ones, and so on until you have a few megacorps with hierarchical organization. The purpose of managerial capitalism is as much to defend firms against competition as it is to increase efficiency. In many cases, they are significantly less efficient than they were as startups, but at least they have hoovered up all the competition.
  • skissane 3y ago
    > It goes hand in hand with urbanization Haredi/Hasidic/ultra-Orthodox Jews are an interesting exception to that – a predominantly urban/suburban subculture sustaining a high TFR (over 6 in Israel). A stringent religious doctrine which promotes large families may be the only thing which can overcome urbanization's encouragement of lower TFRs. In the long-long-long term, it is possible (not certain) that subcultures with that characteristic will end up numerically dominating the population. > It's in this decade that they start running out of working age adults and shit starts getting really screwy The obvious answer is a significant increase in immigration rates. Of course, for political/cultural reasons, some of the countries you mentioned don't want to do that. But, if the economic hardships of population decline grow big enough, they may become bigger than the political/cultural resistance to it. In the long-long term, that strategy is going to fail, because the immigration source countries are on the same demographic trajectory, just further back on the curve. Still, the point at which it fails may well be long after we are all dead.
    • jwells89 3y ago
      I can only speculate of course, but I think something that'd increase birthrates in urbanized society would "simply" be arranging things such that raising a family isn't so exclusionary. In a developed society, people are more likely to have many things they want to pursue and achieve, and due to various factors (financial and otherwise), having kids usually entails giving up on most or all of that. That probably seems like a pretty raw deal to a lot of folks, considering we all only get one life to live. If it weren't so necessary to put off all of these things until the kids have left the nest and youth has been spent away, I'd bet a lot more people would choose to become parents.
      • skissane 3y ago
        > I think something that'd increase birthrates in urbanized society would "simply" be arranging things such that raising a family isn't so exclusionary. There's only so much you can do. You can introduce as much subsidised childcare, parental leave, flexible working conditions, free higher education, etc, policies as you like – those things can alleviate the disadvantage to other life goals of having kids, but are unlikely to ever be able to reduce it to a level at which it ceases to be significant. Then, there is what some rich people do, outsourcing the rearing of their children to nannies, tutors and boarding schools, such that they rarely see them – but, that's not a recipe for raising well-adjusted kids, and economically is unlikely to be scalable beyond a very small rich minority I think it is inevitable that cultures in which reproducing is just one option on the menu are always going to have significantly lower TFR than those in which reproducing is viewed as a religious duty, with those who reject it risking ostracism in this life, and the threat of punishment in the next