4 ms·

Can someone who understands economics better than me explain how the workforce can "shrink" in 2024? The number of people isn't going to dramatically decrease,

Can someone who understands economics better than me explain how the workforce can "shrink" in 2024? The number of people isn't going to dramatically decrease, are just a ton of people retiring? Or does this imply that there's going to be a reduction in the number of available jobs?

kdfjgbdfkjgb 3y ago
if you click on the word shink in the article, it takes you to another article that explains boomers are retiring and they are a larger generation than the younger ones who will replace them.
rjbwork 3y ago
In the industrialized world, the fertility rate is almost universally below replacement rate, and has been for a long time. So, as boomers are retiring, there are not as many people replacing them.
- hallway_monitor 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rjbwork 3y ago
    I understand, I just don't care. It's the economic elites who don't seem to understand that they need a next generation to exploit and that the proletariat cannot be squeezed indefinitely. Eventually we look around and say "fuck this, I'm not wrenching sentience from the void to live in this morass".
  - tombert 3y ago
    I live in the US, have a decent-paying job, but I don't have any kids, and I got a vasectomy so it seems unlikely that I will have any kids. If something happens by accident (e.g. the vas deferens heals), my wife and I would almost certainly keep it and we'd be parents, but I don't think that's terribly likely. I actually do really like kids, I like my nieces and nephew, but the problem is that the value proposition for having kids is not terribly high. They're expensive, and time consuming, and honestly kind of a liability. It's especially hard for women, because pregnancy takes you out of the workforce for a long time, and women are still (however unfairly) typically the "primary caretaker" for the child. Since your 20's are generally the optimal time to grow your career, it's an extremely high opportunity cost to have a child. I've never wanted to have my own kids. My wife and I have agreed to take care of our nieces and nephew if something happens to their parents, but I don't think I'd be a terribly good parent, and I would prefer to avoid screwing up another human.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      If you look at children as some utility-investment ... yeah, you probably shouldn't have kids. But, you are incorrect even then. Eventually, you will get old. Your siblings and parents will be long gone. Then your spouse. You'll have nobody to pass your knowledge on to, at least, nobody to pass it on to that actually cares in a way only a child can about a parent. No grandchildren to spend time with that you simply didn't have the time to as a parent. I don't know man. I had some cancer, and recently got a tumor in my fucking face. I can tell you right now, when faced with death: careers and money means shit.
      - CapstanRoller 3y ago
        What does child-bearing have to do with any of this? There are plenty of humans in the world, and plenty of children (including orphans). If you really care that much about passing on knowledge, write a book or get into teaching. You'll reach a much wider audience that way, and if your knowledge is indeed valuable then your impact will exceed many human lifespans. Literature can survive for a thousand years at least. Creating entire new humans simply to use them as personal data storage devices seems cruel and bizarre. Maybe consider a NAS instead?
      - tombert 3y ago
        It's not just utility on my end; I think it would be selfish. In the last twelve years I have had sixteen jobs. That number being so high wasn't really by choice; I've been fired and laid off a bunch of times. We can wax philosophical to the reasons why, but one thing that has become clear to me is that I'm not a terribly stable person. I am often pretty mean, short-sighted, and impulsive. When you don't have kids, those attributes are kind of considered "eccentric", but if you do that to a kid you're (correctly) considered "abusive". It's one thing to be the primary breadwinner and have your income cut off twice a year when I only live with adults, but it's another when there's a tiny human who is 100% your responsibility depending on it. If I had a kid, it would be a purely greedy move on my end. They would be a prop, like a puppy, there to make me feel better more than any kind of altruism. It's one thing to use a pet as a means of self-comfort, it's another to use another person. Occasionally I will get the urge to "pass my knowledge on", which is why I will occasionally do adjunct lecturing at a nearby university. The students don't just accept everything I say implicitly like a child would, but that's alright and I don't think I would want someone to automatically believe all the shit I say. I think even when I'm old and alone, I'll find ways to keep myself entertained. To be clear, I'm not one of those toxic r/childfree assholes. I don't have a problem with people having kids. I was very happy when my sister told us she was pregnant. I like kids, I try pretty hard to be a decent uncle to my nieces and nephew. I just don't want to be responsible for their development.
  - georgemcbay 3y ago
    Or we could slightly rethink our economic system and buy ourselves some time to deal with all the problems we caused previously due at least partially to unsustainable population growth. https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/25/tomtoro03_wide-61a4632d4f490c9942423d9e780ab089d11ef029-s1400-c100.jpg https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/25/tomtoro03_wide-6...
  - autoexecbat 3y ago
    > please have at least three kids. I'm very happy to do so - on exacally one condition, daycare becomes free.
    - SamuelAdams 3y ago
      See this is interesting to me. For daycare to become free to parents, ideally governments would subsidize it to 100%. That money comes from somewhere, so probably taxpayer dollars. So you are still paying for it, just slightly more indirectly. So, would you rather pay a lot for childcare all at once when you need it (for 5 years per kid), or pay a little via taxes forever?
      - autoexecbat 3y ago
        Forever, for two reasons. 1. It's a large financial hit at an already highly stressful time. It's usually also a non-optional expense. 2. It also taxes those who are childless. We already do free childcare via K-12 education in the US via taxes, we just need to fill in the gap before that.
  - CapstanRoller 3y ago
    >we need the next generation of people Who is "we"? Are you a business owner in need of an ever-increasing pool of cheap labor, or a business owner in need of an ever-increasing customer base, or a land owner/real estate developer/landlord in need of an ever-increasing population requiring housing? (I won't even get into the massive environmental impact of having a child, let alone three!) >if you have a partner and are financially stable, please have at least three kids. For what purpose?
  - Ancalagon 3y ago
    Oh boy I could have a field day with this hot take. Have at least three kids, don’t think about the rising healthcare, education, food, and childcare costs though. Don’t mind the huge increase in car costs - basically a requirement to travel and work in the US. Don’t mind the stagnating pay. Don’t mind the coordinated reduction in pension and 401k benefits we are seeing, nor the steadily decreasing social security funds. You wouldn’t need that money you spent raising three kids on retirement or anything. Nevermind the total lack of job security and universal healthcare in this country. While EU countries have very strict requirements for layoffs, the majority of the US is at-will and you can be laid off at any moment. You will not have healthcare after a paltry few weeks unless you want to spend a lot of money. Did I mention the lack of healthcare? Let’s dive a little deeper. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to visit a hospital and birth babies? Various parts of the US have essentially 3rd-world death statistics for birthing mothers (especially minority mothers). A big part of that is cost to birth a child is too high and these mothers won’t trust or visit a hospital. Why three kids specifically by the way? Standard starter houses are 3bd/2bath here. Guess mom and dad need a bigger house then. Should I continue?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- sdenton4 3y ago
  If only there were lots of people from not-the-US who wanted to live in the US...
  - rjbwork 3y ago
    Expanding legal immigration is a political impossibility at the moment. We'll have a lot of near slave-wage bodies for the worst jobs around though.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Can someone who understands economics better than me explain how the workforce can "shrink" in 2024? There is a generational demographic bulge in an age range where both death and retirement of those who have not yet done so are things that are not unlikely. On the other end, there is the opposite of a bulge at the age people enter (for statisticsl purpose) the workforce.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cbhl 3y ago
If you do not have a job and are not actively looking for work, you are not part of the "labor force". The "labor force" is defined as (working + actively looking). Also, the denominator of the unemployment rate is the size of the labor force, not the size of the working-age population. In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, or if someone decides to become a stay-at-home parent, this causes the size of the labor force to go down by one person. Search for: "labor force participation rate". Also some definitions here (US-specific): https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm Here's also the transcript of the Planet Money podcast from March 2023 which talks about reasons folks left the workforce at that time: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1162753771 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1162753771
- tombert 3y ago
  > In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, I've never understood that either; do other people just not have to pay rent or buy groceries? How do you "give up looking for a job"? I understand becoming a stay at home parent, but what else would make it so you "give up" looking for paid work? This isn't a rhetorical question, I am actually asking because I feel like I'm missing something.
  - akavi 3y ago
    They rely on the incomes of family members, savings, or governmental transfer payments (social security, welfare, disability, etc). Not sure the percentages of each, but those categories probably about cover it.
    - tombert 3y ago
      That's fair, I guess if you're already around retirement age, being unable to find a job might be an impetus to quit looking.
      - saghm 3y ago
rufus_foreman 3y ago
Even though 1/3 of the Baby Boomer generation are already dead, they are still a larger percentage of the population than Generation X. Generation X also has a smaller share of population than the Millenial Generation and Generation Z. -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-share-by-generation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...
hinkley 3y ago
The Ballard neighborhood of Seattle experienced a lot of business turnover starting about ten years ago because many of those stores don’t own their own buildings, the landlords got dollar signs in their eyes, and a lot of older business owners looked at their books, realized how much extra money they were going to have to make per square foot just to keep the lights on, and opted to “retire” instead of renewing their lease or selling the business. “I am too old for this shit.” Seems to have been the common refrain. You can also shrink the employee pool by having more 20-something’s living at home and fewer dual income families.
tkiolp4 3y ago
Developed countries have a low fertility rate, so fewer young people and tons of oldies. Perhaps is not going to be noticeable right away, but it’s gonna hit us hard.

kdfjgbdfkjgb 3y ago

if you click on the word shink in the article, it takes you to another article that explains boomers are retiring and they are a larger generation than the younger ones who will replace them.

rjbwork 3y ago

In the industrialized world, the fertility rate is almost universally below replacement rate, and has been for a long time. So, as boomers are retiring, there are not as many people replacing them.

hallway_monitor 3y ago
[flagged]
- rjbwork 3y ago
  I understand, I just don't care. It's the economic elites who don't seem to understand that they need a next generation to exploit and that the proletariat cannot be squeezed indefinitely. Eventually we look around and say "fuck this, I'm not wrenching sentience from the void to live in this morass".
- tombert 3y ago
  I live in the US, have a decent-paying job, but I don't have any kids, and I got a vasectomy so it seems unlikely that I will have any kids. If something happens by accident (e.g. the vas deferens heals), my wife and I would almost certainly keep it and we'd be parents, but I don't think that's terribly likely. I actually do really like kids, I like my nieces and nephew, but the problem is that the value proposition for having kids is not terribly high. They're expensive, and time consuming, and honestly kind of a liability. It's especially hard for women, because pregnancy takes you out of the workforce for a long time, and women are still (however unfairly) typically the "primary caretaker" for the child. Since your 20's are generally the optimal time to grow your career, it's an extremely high opportunity cost to have a child. I've never wanted to have my own kids. My wife and I have agreed to take care of our nieces and nephew if something happens to their parents, but I don't think I'd be a terribly good parent, and I would prefer to avoid screwing up another human.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    If you look at children as some utility-investment ... yeah, you probably shouldn't have kids. But, you are incorrect even then. Eventually, you will get old. Your siblings and parents will be long gone. Then your spouse. You'll have nobody to pass your knowledge on to, at least, nobody to pass it on to that actually cares in a way only a child can about a parent. No grandchildren to spend time with that you simply didn't have the time to as a parent. I don't know man. I had some cancer, and recently got a tumor in my fucking face. I can tell you right now, when faced with death: careers and money means shit.
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      What does child-bearing have to do with any of this? There are plenty of humans in the world, and plenty of children (including orphans). If you really care that much about passing on knowledge, write a book or get into teaching. You'll reach a much wider audience that way, and if your knowledge is indeed valuable then your impact will exceed many human lifespans. Literature can survive for a thousand years at least. Creating entire new humans simply to use them as personal data storage devices seems cruel and bizarre. Maybe consider a NAS instead?
    - tombert 3y ago
      It's not just utility on my end; I think it would be selfish. In the last twelve years I have had sixteen jobs. That number being so high wasn't really by choice; I've been fired and laid off a bunch of times. We can wax philosophical to the reasons why, but one thing that has become clear to me is that I'm not a terribly stable person. I am often pretty mean, short-sighted, and impulsive. When you don't have kids, those attributes are kind of considered "eccentric", but if you do that to a kid you're (correctly) considered "abusive". It's one thing to be the primary breadwinner and have your income cut off twice a year when I only live with adults, but it's another when there's a tiny human who is 100% your responsibility depending on it. If I had a kid, it would be a purely greedy move on my end. They would be a prop, like a puppy, there to make me feel better more than any kind of altruism. It's one thing to use a pet as a means of self-comfort, it's another to use another person. Occasionally I will get the urge to "pass my knowledge on", which is why I will occasionally do adjunct lecturing at a nearby university. The students don't just accept everything I say implicitly like a child would, but that's alright and I don't think I would want someone to automatically believe all the shit I say. I think even when I'm old and alone, I'll find ways to keep myself entertained. To be clear, I'm not one of those toxic r/childfree assholes. I don't have a problem with people having kids. I was very happy when my sister told us she was pregnant. I like kids, I try pretty hard to be a decent uncle to my nieces and nephew. I just don't want to be responsible for their development.
- georgemcbay 3y ago
  Or we could slightly rethink our economic system and buy ourselves some time to deal with all the problems we caused previously due at least partially to unsustainable population growth. https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/25/tomtoro03_wide-61a4632d4f490c9942423d9e780ab089d11ef029-s1400-c100.jpg https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/25/tomtoro03_wide-6...
- autoexecbat 3y ago
  > please have at least three kids. I'm very happy to do so - on exacally one condition, daycare becomes free.
  - SamuelAdams 3y ago
    See this is interesting to me. For daycare to become free to parents, ideally governments would subsidize it to 100%. That money comes from somewhere, so probably taxpayer dollars. So you are still paying for it, just slightly more indirectly. So, would you rather pay a lot for childcare all at once when you need it (for 5 years per kid), or pay a little via taxes forever?
    - autoexecbat 3y ago
      Forever, for two reasons. 1. It's a large financial hit at an already highly stressful time. It's usually also a non-optional expense. 2. It also taxes those who are childless. We already do free childcare via K-12 education in the US via taxes, we just need to fill in the gap before that.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  >we need the next generation of people Who is "we"? Are you a business owner in need of an ever-increasing pool of cheap labor, or a business owner in need of an ever-increasing customer base, or a land owner/real estate developer/landlord in need of an ever-increasing population requiring housing? (I won't even get into the massive environmental impact of having a child, let alone three!) >if you have a partner and are financially stable, please have at least three kids. For what purpose?
- Ancalagon 3y ago
  Oh boy I could have a field day with this hot take. Have at least three kids, don’t think about the rising healthcare, education, food, and childcare costs though. Don’t mind the huge increase in car costs - basically a requirement to travel and work in the US. Don’t mind the stagnating pay. Don’t mind the coordinated reduction in pension and 401k benefits we are seeing, nor the steadily decreasing social security funds. You wouldn’t need that money you spent raising three kids on retirement or anything. Nevermind the total lack of job security and universal healthcare in this country. While EU countries have very strict requirements for layoffs, the majority of the US is at-will and you can be laid off at any moment. You will not have healthcare after a paltry few weeks unless you want to spend a lot of money. Did I mention the lack of healthcare? Let’s dive a little deeper. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to visit a hospital and birth babies? Various parts of the US have essentially 3rd-world death statistics for birthing mothers (especially minority mothers). A big part of that is cost to birth a child is too high and these mothers won’t trust or visit a hospital. Why three kids specifically by the way? Standard starter houses are 3bd/2bath here. Guess mom and dad need a bigger house then. Should I continue?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sdenton4 3y ago
If only there were lots of people from not-the-US who wanted to live in the US...
- rjbwork 3y ago
  Expanding legal immigration is a political impossibility at the moment. We'll have a lot of near slave-wage bodies for the worst jobs around though.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Can someone who understands economics better than me explain how the workforce can "shrink" in 2024? There is a generational demographic bulge in an age range where both death and retirement of those who have not yet done so are things that are not unlikely. On the other end, there is the opposite of a bulge at the age people enter (for statisticsl purpose) the workforce.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cbhl 3y ago

If you do not have a job and are not actively looking for work, you are not part of the "labor force". The "labor force" is defined as (working + actively looking). Also, the denominator of the unemployment rate is the size of the labor force, not the size of the working-age population. In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, or if someone decides to become a stay-at-home parent, this causes the size of the labor force to go down by one person. Search for: "labor force participation rate". Also some definitions here (US-specific): https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm Here's also the transcript of the Planet Money podcast from March 2023 which talks about reasons folks left the workforce at that time: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1162753771 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1162753771

tombert 3y ago
> In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, I've never understood that either; do other people just not have to pay rent or buy groceries? How do you "give up looking for a job"? I understand becoming a stay at home parent, but what else would make it so you "give up" looking for paid work? This isn't a rhetorical question, I am actually asking because I feel like I'm missing something.
- akavi 3y ago
  They rely on the incomes of family members, savings, or governmental transfer payments (social security, welfare, disability, etc). Not sure the percentages of each, but those categories probably about cover it.
  - tombert 3y ago
    That's fair, I guess if you're already around retirement age, being unable to find a job might be an impetus to quit looking.
    - saghm 3y ago

rufus_foreman 3y ago

Even though 1/3 of the Baby Boomer generation are already dead, they are still a larger percentage of the population than Generation X. Generation X also has a smaller share of population than the Millenial Generation and Generation Z. -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-share-by-generation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...

hinkley 3y ago

The Ballard neighborhood of Seattle experienced a lot of business turnover starting about ten years ago because many of those stores don’t own their own buildings, the landlords got dollar signs in their eyes, and a lot of older business owners looked at their books, realized how much extra money they were going to have to make per square foot just to keep the lights on, and opted to “retire” instead of renewing their lease or selling the business. “I am too old for this shit.” Seems to have been the common refrain. You can also shrink the employee pool by having more 20-something’s living at home and fewer dual income families.

tkiolp4 3y ago

Developed countries have a low fertility rate, so fewer young people and tons of oldies. Perhaps is not going to be noticeable right away, but it’s gonna hit us hard.