1) Replace religious with “low iq third worlders” and replacing population B with population A sounds a lot worse.
2) moderate population decline (say 1.5-1.8) TFR would probably be fine for certain overcrowded countries (like Japan). Provided there is no immigration. Obviously east Asia is way past moderate.
3) “working longer” has consequences. Do we want most of our institutions being run by 70 year olds? What would be the affects of that? Gerontocracy isn’t just about entitlements, it’s about the center of gravity of a civilization.
Moreover, working grandparents can’t watch grandkids.
4) the dependency ratio isn’t the primary problem. The primary problem is that medical expenses are theoretically infinite. Absent dependency issues Medicare could still bankrupt us.
5) people without kids or with few kids seem to act very different then people with kids, and it mostly seems to be a bad thing
6) my personal opinion is that the childless free ride on the child bearing. If this free ridding were eliminated (say via massive child tax breaks that acknowledge the costs of child rearing) then I think people would get closer to their desired fertility
You misunderstood the Mouse Utopia experiment. It didn't show population declined because of lack of resources, it showed population decline in the presence of *abundant resources*:
"What would happen if animals in the wild could count on human sources for their diet and never have to hunt or scrounge? What if, in other words, we humans imposed a generous welfare state on our furry friends?"
‘Fifty years ago, experts thought that the demographic crisis for humanity was overpopulation.’ Yes just as 30 years ago ‘experts’ said the Planet was going to boil, but now it’s cooling... although they still insist it’s about to burn. And 3 years ago ‘experte’ said CoV 2 was going to kill millions. I just wonder when people are going to stop listening to ‘experts’ - how many times do they have to get it completely wrong before we wise up? When will we realise this ‘let’s draw a straight line through the present data and continue the slope upward for ever’ to tell us the future, is just astrology and less accurate. Haven’t there been enough examples of that straight line into the futur being proved wrong? We cannot assume current infertility will continue because - gee whizz we have this thing called social, economic and environmental conditions which is a bit of a wild card that produces quite unexpected results.
The financial problems caused by a declining population are broader than just entitlement programs. Think about how we finance public works such as a highway. We borrow money (sell bonds) and then collect taxes or user fees for twenty or thirty years to repay the debt. As long as the population, and the economy, are growing repaying the debt gets progressively easier as time passes. Now imagine what will happen in a world with a declining population.
"How do you eliminate the intergenerational transfer? You cannot just all of a sudden say to the Baby Boomers, “Sorry, young workers today are going to support their own retirement, not yours. Screw you. We’re not paying for your Social Security and Medicare.”
We shouldn't, and they won't (no "we" here, there's nothing resembling a representative government, hasn't been since the early 1800's) say this to Boomers.
Instead, they'll devalue the currency. They've done it before, many times, in every country. They'll do it again. What will be interesting to see is how they game the CPI to avoid adjusting things for inflation.
What needs to happen is the Federal Government (and corporate handouts are very much a big part of this) needs to shrink by 70% at least, and the wanton militarism and corruption (but I repeat myself) needs to end.
That's not going to happen voluntarily, so instead we'll get an "event", so they can blame it on God, or nature, or "force majeure", or Russia, or China, or we the people, or space aliens, or something... Anything but themselves.
Assuming things don't get too bad, or another competing group of elites doesn't take advantage of this to rally the people, they'll probably get away with it, again.
From a perspective of economics, you make some odd assumptions. The kind of reproductive heterogeneity you admit is odd, largely heritable and geographically even. Much more likely are factors like assortative mating and dynamic decisions based on social status, signalling, values, and temporary economics. Biologically, delayed childbirth and artificial processes also lead to increased rates of health challenges and developmental issues. I'm not sure how this all plays out, frankly, but you could profitably address situations like childbearing and rearing being low status, and accepting small government handouts making it even lower status... Which seems to hamstring natalist government policies.
It used to be that requiring an heir was a major incentive for high status families to have at least two boys. Naturally there were going to be some girls too. See Japan for an example of substitution by adoption at the top.
Anyway, you may be right to not worry about an existential threat, but the kinetic challenge seems large and potentially very disruptive as it is localized.
Also, our overall ability to recognize grand challenges like overpopulation or global cooling is becoming infamous. If India had followed China to the one child policy, like many wanted, the kinetics could be far worse, immediately.
What about automation? Aren't schemes like UBI based on the premise that in the near future there will be too many workers for the available jobs because of automation?
So:
Projection A: there will be not enough workers (to support social security etc.)
Projection B: there will too much workers (for the available jobs)
"Some allowance for people who work in physically demanding jobs would be appropriate."
People who sit in offices all day rarely have a good understanding of what it is like to work in a physically demanding job. Modern factories are better than old-fashioned ones: the machine shop where I worked during summers long ago is now air-conditioned, which was it not back then. Even so, being on your feet most of the day really tires you out by middle age. I may continue to work in my office job to age 70, which I could never do as a factory worker.
Off topic: I know you often like to wait a few days before you post, to avoid commenting superficially on ephemeral news stories, but the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank seems tailor-made for your commentary.
Unmentioned so far in the 40 comments is the estrogen in the environment, especially from the Pill but also similar other manufactured hormones & chemicals.
Sperm count of fish have gone down; men have lower avg sperm counts.
Even if it was true that the Pill is a significant pollutant causing this degradation, it seems highly unlikely the EPA would be willing to try to ban it. Sexual promiscuity is far too politically popular, even if it, too, has been decreasing over the last couple of decades.
Increased childlessness is a smaller problem, with less human suffering, than overcrowding & hunger & too few resources. We should be preparing for fewer kids and more elderly more than we have been doing. As long as there are billionaires in the US, there are potential sources of tax increases to pay for more SS - and most elderly still vote in high numbers.
Insofar as high IQ people, especially women, are having far fewer kids while lower IQ folk have relatively more, it seems likely that the Flynn effect of increasing IQs will cease and we might already have reached a turning point with decreasing avg IQs. This has long been the eugenics fear, and remains a racist idea because of the hated reality that Blacks have lower IQs. Yet the fertility among Blacks has not led them to increase their % of the population - thanks to Asian & Hispanic immigration the Black % is a bit less.
One reason that the pro-life political position has gotten stronger is exactly that the pro-abortion folk had fewer kids, and the pro-life folk had more. It's very likely that pro-life mothers have raised pro-life kids into pro-life voters, especially those not going to college.
If the pro-life Amish & Mormons & Orthodox increase their percentages in the population, there will come a time when the population increases, again, even with less immigration.
In the meantime, the culture needs to give more status to married parents with kids - and lots more tax credit benefits would help. I support annually increasing the tax credits for married parents with kids until the fertility rate reaches 2 (with 2.1 being the replacement rate).
In the modern world, only the leaders want more people to rule over and satisfy their egos.
From the citizens viewpoint the GDP per capita is far more relevant that the GDP total.
Humans are not rats. It appears that homo sapiens developed our huge energy burning brain to obtain the advantages of "specialization and trade" but you don't need population sizes in the tens of billions pushing energy source limits on a finite planet to have enough "specialization and trade" for a good life.
Here in Australia, before I arrived in the Lucky Country, the government of the day introduced "superannuation". I think it was around 1992. There was an old age pension in existence (what the US calls social security) and it's still in existence.
But "super", as we all know it here, was compulsory, originally around 4%, now it's 10.5%. The rate is increased a little bit year after year. Most people think "the employer pays it" which is a helpful myth. Of course, us economically minded people know that really the employee is paying.
Super is a great idea. We're funding our own retirement. Contributions to super are taxed at a lower rate, 15%, creating an incentive for individuals to contribute more.
If your super runs out, there's still the old age pension, which I'm guessing isn't living the dream, but you won't starve.
"Something will have to give" is a euphemism for "younger people are going to get hosed." It's just a question of whether the impact is via inflation, future benefit cuts, or future taxes.
Not going to happen, but I feel like a one-time wealth tax to shore up the system would actually be most fair (or least unfair perhaps). Those who most benefited from a clearly unsustainable system should pay for its repair.
1) Replace religious with “low iq third worlders” and replacing population B with population A sounds a lot worse.
2) moderate population decline (say 1.5-1.8) TFR would probably be fine for certain overcrowded countries (like Japan). Provided there is no immigration. Obviously east Asia is way past moderate.
3) “working longer” has consequences. Do we want most of our institutions being run by 70 year olds? What would be the affects of that? Gerontocracy isn’t just about entitlements, it’s about the center of gravity of a civilization.
Moreover, working grandparents can’t watch grandkids.
4) the dependency ratio isn’t the primary problem. The primary problem is that medical expenses are theoretically infinite. Absent dependency issues Medicare could still bankrupt us.
5) people without kids or with few kids seem to act very different then people with kids, and it mostly seems to be a bad thing
6) my personal opinion is that the childless free ride on the child bearing. If this free ridding were eliminated (say via massive child tax breaks that acknowledge the costs of child rearing) then I think people would get closer to their desired fertility
You misunderstood the Mouse Utopia experiment. It didn't show population declined because of lack of resources, it showed population decline in the presence of *abundant resources*:
"What would happen if animals in the wild could count on human sources for their diet and never have to hunt or scrounge? What if, in other words, we humans imposed a generous welfare state on our furry friends?"
https://fee.org/articles/john-b-calhoun-s-mouse-utopia-experiment-and-reflections-on-the-welfare-state/
‘Fifty years ago, experts thought that the demographic crisis for humanity was overpopulation.’ Yes just as 30 years ago ‘experts’ said the Planet was going to boil, but now it’s cooling... although they still insist it’s about to burn. And 3 years ago ‘experte’ said CoV 2 was going to kill millions. I just wonder when people are going to stop listening to ‘experts’ - how many times do they have to get it completely wrong before we wise up? When will we realise this ‘let’s draw a straight line through the present data and continue the slope upward for ever’ to tell us the future, is just astrology and less accurate. Haven’t there been enough examples of that straight line into the futur being proved wrong? We cannot assume current infertility will continue because - gee whizz we have this thing called social, economic and environmental conditions which is a bit of a wild card that produces quite unexpected results.
It doesn’t help that in the past couple of years live births are down 10% or more from the years before. Also, miscarriages are up.
The financial problems caused by a declining population are broader than just entitlement programs. Think about how we finance public works such as a highway. We borrow money (sell bonds) and then collect taxes or user fees for twenty or thirty years to repay the debt. As long as the population, and the economy, are growing repaying the debt gets progressively easier as time passes. Now imagine what will happen in a world with a declining population.
"How do you eliminate the intergenerational transfer? You cannot just all of a sudden say to the Baby Boomers, “Sorry, young workers today are going to support their own retirement, not yours. Screw you. We’re not paying for your Social Security and Medicare.”
We shouldn't, and they won't (no "we" here, there's nothing resembling a representative government, hasn't been since the early 1800's) say this to Boomers.
Instead, they'll devalue the currency. They've done it before, many times, in every country. They'll do it again. What will be interesting to see is how they game the CPI to avoid adjusting things for inflation.
What needs to happen is the Federal Government (and corporate handouts are very much a big part of this) needs to shrink by 70% at least, and the wanton militarism and corruption (but I repeat myself) needs to end.
That's not going to happen voluntarily, so instead we'll get an "event", so they can blame it on God, or nature, or "force majeure", or Russia, or China, or we the people, or space aliens, or something... Anything but themselves.
Assuming things don't get too bad, or another competing group of elites doesn't take advantage of this to rally the people, they'll probably get away with it, again.
From a perspective of economics, you make some odd assumptions. The kind of reproductive heterogeneity you admit is odd, largely heritable and geographically even. Much more likely are factors like assortative mating and dynamic decisions based on social status, signalling, values, and temporary economics. Biologically, delayed childbirth and artificial processes also lead to increased rates of health challenges and developmental issues. I'm not sure how this all plays out, frankly, but you could profitably address situations like childbearing and rearing being low status, and accepting small government handouts making it even lower status... Which seems to hamstring natalist government policies.
It used to be that requiring an heir was a major incentive for high status families to have at least two boys. Naturally there were going to be some girls too. See Japan for an example of substitution by adoption at the top.
Anyway, you may be right to not worry about an existential threat, but the kinetic challenge seems large and potentially very disruptive as it is localized.
Also, our overall ability to recognize grand challenges like overpopulation or global cooling is becoming infamous. If India had followed China to the one child policy, like many wanted, the kinetics could be far worse, immediately.
Should we be concerned if only people with a religious mindset inherit the Earth?
I see many positives to religion, but also would worry about the kind of society that would create in the long run.
Doesn’t your mouse example disprove the A B theory?
What about automation? Aren't schemes like UBI based on the premise that in the near future there will be too many workers for the available jobs because of automation?
So:
Projection A: there will be not enough workers (to support social security etc.)
Projection B: there will too much workers (for the available jobs)
They can't be both true it seems to me.
Who can enlighten me?
"Some allowance for people who work in physically demanding jobs would be appropriate."
People who sit in offices all day rarely have a good understanding of what it is like to work in a physically demanding job. Modern factories are better than old-fashioned ones: the machine shop where I worked during summers long ago is now air-conditioned, which was it not back then. Even so, being on your feet most of the day really tires you out by middle age. I may continue to work in my office job to age 70, which I could never do as a factory worker.
Off topic: I know you often like to wait a few days before you post, to avoid commenting superficially on ephemeral news stories, but the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank seems tailor-made for your commentary.
Unmentioned so far in the 40 comments is the estrogen in the environment, especially from the Pill but also similar other manufactured hormones & chemicals.
Sperm count of fish have gone down; men have lower avg sperm counts.
Even if it was true that the Pill is a significant pollutant causing this degradation, it seems highly unlikely the EPA would be willing to try to ban it. Sexual promiscuity is far too politically popular, even if it, too, has been decreasing over the last couple of decades.
Increased childlessness is a smaller problem, with less human suffering, than overcrowding & hunger & too few resources. We should be preparing for fewer kids and more elderly more than we have been doing. As long as there are billionaires in the US, there are potential sources of tax increases to pay for more SS - and most elderly still vote in high numbers.
Insofar as high IQ people, especially women, are having far fewer kids while lower IQ folk have relatively more, it seems likely that the Flynn effect of increasing IQs will cease and we might already have reached a turning point with decreasing avg IQs. This has long been the eugenics fear, and remains a racist idea because of the hated reality that Blacks have lower IQs. Yet the fertility among Blacks has not led them to increase their % of the population - thanks to Asian & Hispanic immigration the Black % is a bit less.
One reason that the pro-life political position has gotten stronger is exactly that the pro-abortion folk had fewer kids, and the pro-life folk had more. It's very likely that pro-life mothers have raised pro-life kids into pro-life voters, especially those not going to college.
If the pro-life Amish & Mormons & Orthodox increase their percentages in the population, there will come a time when the population increases, again, even with less immigration.
In the meantime, the culture needs to give more status to married parents with kids - and lots more tax credit benefits would help. I support annually increasing the tax credits for married parents with kids until the fertility rate reaches 2 (with 2.1 being the replacement rate).
In the modern world, only the leaders want more people to rule over and satisfy their egos.
From the citizens viewpoint the GDP per capita is far more relevant that the GDP total.
Humans are not rats. It appears that homo sapiens developed our huge energy burning brain to obtain the advantages of "specialization and trade" but you don't need population sizes in the tens of billions pushing energy source limits on a finite planet to have enough "specialization and trade" for a good life.
Your savings are a claim on future production. Any retirement is paid out of the production of the young workers.
Here in Australia, before I arrived in the Lucky Country, the government of the day introduced "superannuation". I think it was around 1992. There was an old age pension in existence (what the US calls social security) and it's still in existence.
But "super", as we all know it here, was compulsory, originally around 4%, now it's 10.5%. The rate is increased a little bit year after year. Most people think "the employer pays it" which is a helpful myth. Of course, us economically minded people know that really the employee is paying.
Super is a great idea. We're funding our own retirement. Contributions to super are taxed at a lower rate, 15%, creating an incentive for individuals to contribute more.
If your super runs out, there's still the old age pension, which I'm guessing isn't living the dream, but you won't starve.
"Something will have to give" is a euphemism for "younger people are going to get hosed." It's just a question of whether the impact is via inflation, future benefit cuts, or future taxes.
Not going to happen, but I feel like a one-time wealth tax to shore up the system would actually be most fair (or least unfair perhaps). Those who most benefited from a clearly unsustainable system should pay for its repair.