s/o things that are changing because fewer kids are being born

[SKL]

Recently the news reported that there have been fewer births in the US than any year since 1979, and a lower birth rate than any time since they started counting (which probably means, lowest ever, considering that people historically had a lot of births).  The birth rate is significantly less than replacement rate at this point.

Not saying that's a good or bad thing.  But I think it means there have been and will be changes in various aspects of US culture.  So I just wanted to start a chat about that.

What do you all think?  What will change for the better, what will change for the worse, and do you think something needs to be done about it?

[73349]

I'm hoping average new house sizes will go back down & builders will go for high efficiency + upgrades in finishes to increase value instead of just more square footage.

[Faith-manor]

I think wages will go up a lot because with immigration so tight, there aren't all the worker bees that many corporations want. I also believe manufacturing will slow down since there won't be as many people to buy the stuff, and they don't pay the humans being trafficked into their dangerous overseas factories enough money to buy the stuff being produced. So the economy, in terms of never ending growth, is going to stall if not contract. That will mean the status quo is going to change with a lot to negative reaction. I am unsure how that will play out.

Schools will consolidate. On the one hand, bad because students will have long commutes. On the positive, running fewer districts and buildings will be more cost effective, and might allow for programs to expand instead of contract bringing back more academic flexibility which is needed.

There will be fewer tax payers and more retirees. I think it could force the issue of universal healthcare because as a percentage of GDP it is way less cost, and if the workers have to pay higher taxes, they can't also be paying thousands and thousands out to pocket in premiums and deductibles. It isn't sustainable. Or the opposite effect if the powers that be are particularly evil, and Medicare and social security gets cut to the bone, workers live like paupers, and the elderly die, miserable and unattended. Given the current state of leadership, that isn't far fetched either.

We will probably see some LACs and smaller universities close because the well of potential collegians will shrink a good bit.

GenZ and Gen Alpha seem to be more into experiences and making memories than stuff. So travel might expand much more than we would expect.

That is all I can think of at the moment.

[prairiewindmomma]

What the US is experiencing is part of a global shift of demographics—China, Europe, and most of the rest of the world is experiencing this as well. Older people withdraw their capital from the market as they retire and begin spending it on care. That in and of itself is destabilizing. Benefit programs will struggle as large payments are made out but there are fewer workers paying in. (We need to raise corporate taxes but this doesnt seem likely.) We will have less demand for market goods and retail companies will take an especial hit. As governments have less money in their coffers, I expect continued lack of reinvestment into infrastructure, schools, etc. Demographically, we really need to allow moderated immigration to fill key industry positions with people who will pay taxes. 

[maize]

One thing that never gets talked about, that I think needs to be talked about, is that an expanding population has been one of the major drivers of economic growth over the past few centuries. It's not the only factor, and of course the burgeoning human population has been facilitated by some of the other factors (and has in turn facilitated those factors in a feedback-loop manner) such as technological development and increased utilization of both finite and non-finite natural resources. But it has been a reliable, prime driver of economic growth throughout the modern era. And nobody seems to be talking about how worldwide economic systems that are all predicated on continually growing economies will be impacted when this major driver of growth dries up.

As world population growth levels off and, according to predictions, begins to drop--I expect global economic growth to also slow and possibly at some future point reverse--there is an actual limit to how much an individual human can consume in resources and products, tangible and intangible both. It's a high limit, and maybe ultimately less of a factor with regard to the limits of economic growth than are the the impacts of increasing individual consumption and their consequential depletion of resources, contribution to environmental pollution,  etc.

In either case, endless economic growth eithin a finite system is not sustainable--but such growth is foundational to our globally-interlocked economic systems. Why do I never see this discussed? Why are we not, collectively, working to figure out more sustainable economic systems? Surely there are economists somewhere modeling what might happen with a long-term slow-down of economic growth?

[Frances]

41 minutes ago, maize said:

One thing that never gets talked about, that I think needs to be talked about, is that an expanding population has been one of the major drivers of economic growth over the past few centuries. It's not the only factor, and of course the burgeoning human population has been facilitated by some of the other factors (and has in turn facilitated those factors in a feedback-loop manner) such as technological development and increased utilization of both finite and non-finite natural resources. But it has been a reliable, prime driver of economic growth throughout the modern era. And nobody seems to be talking about how worldwide economic systems that are all predicated on continually growing economies will be impacted when this major driver of growth dries up.

As world population growth levels off and, according to predictions, begins to drop--I expect global economic growth to also slow and possibly at some future point reverse--there is an actual limit to how much an individual human can consume in resources and products, tangible and intangible both. It's a high limit, and maybe ultimately less of a factor with regard to the limits of economic growth than are the the impacts of increasing individual consumption and their consequential depletion of resources, contribution to environmental pollution,  etc.

In either case, endless economic growth eithin a finite system is not sustainable--but such growth is foundational to our globally-interlocked economic systems. Why do I never see this discussed? Why are we not, collectively, working to figure out more sustainable economic systems? Surely there are economists somewhere modeling what might happen with a long-term slow-down of economic growth?

Not sure where you are looking, but a simple internet search finds plenty of articles on this very topic. 

[Carrie12345]

Caregiving positions, which already suck, won’t get filled. So good luck to any of us who will need any form of care in 20+ years!

(ETA: I don’t think that’s a proper reason for anyone to change their mind about kids, lol.)

Edited April 26 by Carrie12345

[SKL]

I wonder what technological replacements will exist to make up for the combination of fewer healthcare workers + more healthcare users.

I can imagine some things.  I am thinking maybe we should plan on investing in some home upgrades / technologies since the cost of / access to geriatric services will probably be a big challenge when my generation is old.

[freesia]

If Gen X was a small generation—which we were, it seems natural that there would be fewer of our children. So our children collectively would have fewer children than the millennials did. I don’t think that is the whole reason, but it is part of the reason. 

[mommyoffive]

I read this article on it yesterday.

 

https://www.wisn.com/article/us-fertility-rate-dropped-to-lowest-in-a-century-as-births-dipped-in-2023/60598377?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email - Coronavirus&utm_source=662acb5cd72cc43079d11d6e0ae1e621&brzu=29d633aae90dc05f4b0bbcc8984257f70188fddb1ba0399390b3f65f9eebc5d1&lctg=61849952373e6638feaa6c59&email_trigger=ebsbenhart7@gmail.com

[prairiewindmomma]

Peter Zeihan talks about demographics from a geopolitical perspective frequently. I dont agree with all of his ideas, but he has decent graphs and numbers.

[Faith-manor]

If Andy Weir is to be believed, robotic nurses will be able to babysit our comas on the way to a new solar system! But I am skeptical. I could see a robot arm that administers shots or hands out pills by dispenser or something. I think things like grave digging and closing (maybe every cemetery will have this robot), ditch maintenance that is autonomous, possible autonomous fruit pickers, that kind of thing. But they will be so expensive up front, that most businesses and retired folk won't be able to own the automated appliances/machinery so there would have to be some way to make them readily available to the masses.

I could see some sort of automated mop being used in medical facilities and schools, and sweepers as well thus lowering the number of custodians needed.

I think we will run into problems of not having enough people to do certain things long before the tech catches up.

[Faith-manor]

Demographics in the US will change for sure. Gen Alpha is the first generation in which white children are not in the majority.

Of the new the many millenials and Gen Z folks that I know, very very few intend on having children. Some of the GenZ males in this group have already had that taken care of permanently. It is hard to tell how GenAlpha will think about child rearing, but given they are a very traumatized generation from pandemic schooling to constant school shootings and bomb threats, my guess is they may be rather against having children to put through more of the same.

It seems like leadership only lives in the here and now, and that is definitely the way big business behaves so I don't think any true, long-term planning has occurred.

We still have a school district in my county whose high school student body is 52. The graduating class this year is 8. How are they even keeping the doors open and still offering the full Michigan Merit Curriculum. I don't get it. That district borders 3 other districts all of whom have much better educational outcomes. Why hasn't the state divided these students among those districts, and closed up, and saved the huge cost of running the district? Michigan has to give them a startlingly huge amount of money above the per head funding and property taxes in order to keep it going. These are the types of issues that must be addressed going forward.

 

[bolt.]

In Canada (my country) the parents of children have been entitled (since the 2nd world war) to a program of monthly payments to help offset the cost of being parents. The amount of these payments (from token to significant) and their ties to various things (such as parents' incomes, the ages of the children) and who qualifies has varied widely based on who was in charge of the country and what their priorities are.

This is a pretty standard governmental response to declining birth rates in cases where a declining birth rate is deemed detrimental to the country, and when the optics of such an offer look good politically.

Shockingly "throw cash at the problem" has been a very effective solution historically!

The chances of Canada increasing child payments as children become increasingly unaffordable (and potential parents become increasingly unwilling) is really quite high. They are likely to just bump the numbers until the birth rate lands where they want it.

What are the chances of a program like that in the USA?

They also quietly tweak immigration numbers -- but I doubt that would fly right now for you guys.

[chiguirre]

3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Demographically, we really need to allow moderated immigration to fill key industry positions with people who will pay taxes. 

What must be done will be done. All of a sudden, certain news outlets will shut up about "invasions" and start running stories about how immigrants have revitalized X area or X industry. We could fix the problem pretty much instantaneously if we attached criminal penalties to employers who fail to use E-verify, and yet we don't. There's a reason business likes unfettered illegal immigration and the wage suppression it brings. If it becomes too politically volatile a topic, we'll see a "solution" and it will drop out of the news. I'm really cynical about this particular issue.

43 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Demographics in the US will change for sure. Gen Alpha is the first generation in which white children are not in the majority.

 

I think a lot of ethnic groups are going to be subsumed into "whiteness" just like the Irish and Italians and Jews and Poles were. Isabel Wilkerson's book, Caste, is a thoughtful reflection on this tendency. I wish that we could just include everyone and maybe the Zoomers and Alphas will do better than we did. This remains to be seen.

3 hours ago, maize said:

In either case, endless economic growth eithin a finite system is not sustainable--but such growth is foundational to our globally-interlocked economic systems. Why do I never see this discussed? Why are we not, collectively, working to figure out more sustainable economic systems? Surely there are economists somewhere modeling what might happen with a long-term slow-down of economic growth?

I think it's important to distinguish between overall growth and per capita growth. I don't think we're necessarily headed to a drop in per capita growth. Realistically, we have to reduce human population. We're stressing the planet's ability to carry us. We can do this the easy way with a drop in birth rates or we can do this the hard way with a new Black Death. I'm actually impressed with our innate ability to regulate our birth rate in accordance with our environment. Malthus really was wrong! 

Edited April 26 by chiguirre

[freesia]

42 minutes ago, bolt. said:

In Canada (my country) the parents of children have been entitled (since the 2nd world war) to a program of monthly payments to help offset the cost of being parents. The amount of these payments (from token to significant) and their ties to various things (such as parents' incomes, the ages of the children) and who qualifies has varied widely based on who was in charge of the country and what their priorities are.

This is a pretty standard governmental response to declining birth rates in cases where a declining birth rate is deemed detrimental to the country, and when the optics of such an offer look good politically.

Shockingly "throw cash at the problem" has been a very effective solution historically!

The chances of Canada increasing child payments as children become increasingly unaffordable (and potential parents become increasingly unwilling) is really quite high. They are likely to just bump the numbers until the birth rate lands where they want it.

What are the chances of a program like that in the USA?

They also quietly tweak immigration numbers -- but I doubt that would fly right now for you guys.

I loved this when we were in Canada. However, practically speaking, there were tax credits when we moved to the states that weren’t there in Canada that ended up amounting to the same amount of money. I had been concerned about the loss of the supplements and that we’d have less money, but it really was quite equal. 

[bolt.]

2 minutes ago, freesia said:

I loved this when we were in Canada. However, practically speaking, there were tax credits when we moved to the states that weren’t there in Canada that ended up amounting to the same amount of money. I had been concerned about the loss of the supplements and that we’d have less money, but it really was quite equal. 

I thought it was a fairly widespread approach, so I'm not surprised that the USA has found some way to reduce the expense of parenthood.

It's interesting that the USA does it as tax credits -- Does that mean lower deductions off every paycheck (more per month) or a bigger tax refund (once per year)? Are the credits 'worth more' to people in higher tax brackets than lower ones? I suppose that parents who don't make enough money to pay significant taxes get other low-income targeted benefits of some kind? I wonder what the pros and cons are for making it a tax-reduction strategy over a direct benefit strategy. (Just general curiosity -- no need to answer if you don't know off the top of your head.)

[freesia]

7 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I thought it was a fairly widespread approach, so I'm not surprised that the USA has found some way to reduce the expense of parenthood.

It's interesting that the USA does it as tax credits -- Does that mean lower deductions off every paycheck (more per month) or a bigger tax refund (once per year)? Are the credits 'worth more' to people in higher tax brackets than lower ones? I suppose that parents who don't make enough money to pay significant taxes get other low-income targeted benefits of some kind? I wonder what the pros and cons are for making it a tax-reduction strategy over a direct benefit strategy. (Just general curiosity -- no need to answer if you don't know off the top of your head.)

It’s been 16 years. Here is the link https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/child-tax-credit. You can do it either way. We had our employer take out less each paycheck by lowering our deductions. Other people like getting money back. There are other credits low income folks can take ( and medical care and supplemental mental food benefits)

[prairiewindmomma]

Chiming back in re: immigration---I mean, realistically, with the amount of global warming that is already baked into the system: 

Copernicus's sea temperature graph--look at the 2023 and 2024 numbers: https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-february-2024-was-globally-warmest-record-global-sea-surface-temperatures-record-high

the reality that we are currently on the RCP 8.5 climate change path, with AMOC signaling it is more likely to collapse in the next 10 years, and that that will bring with it significant sea level rise, coupled with the information from the fifth national climate assessment https://nca2023.globalchange.gov (funded by congressed, information processed by NOAA, we're not talking quackery science here)

We're looking at some very serious issues.

Agricultural yields are going to drop--probably by at least 30% globally---overnight temperatures aren't going to allow soy seed pods to form, or wheat to head in those key windows. Moisture levels are going to become more chaotic with longer stretches of drought and more intense rainfall. Saltwater infiltration as sea level rise causes freshwater tables to be infiltrated with salt water, making it unsuitable for people or plant or animal use....

Reduced ocean yields of food as we see more anoxic patches and food chain collapse

Increased utility instability as demand for electricity goes---data centers aside, just sheer air conditioning demand as well as potable water shortages---but also problems along coastal areas from sea level rise, knowing also that the demand for transformers is pushing a couple of years out and that we're lacking key metals to be able to do a full green energy transformation

increased hiccups in global shipping, particularly along river fronts and canal passages (Danube and Mississippi were both affected last year, as well as Panama canal), as well as ports that are going to be affected by sea level rise

Like, it's a long and cascading list of failures we're tipping into.....we need reduced population numbers AND we need to try to maintain some sort of stability as well. 

I think, globally, we've been focused on all of the wrong things....and I think to some degree in a FAFO scenario, having FA for 40 years and not only not fixed our environmental problems but have made them exponentially worse we're going to have a really unpleasant FO era.  Life will continue, but I'm not at all convinced that even half of human life is going to be around at 2100.

 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

double post, sorry internet has been hiccupy today here

Edited April 26 by prairiewindmomma

[maize]

1 hour ago, chiguirre said:

 

I think it's important to distinguish between overall growth and per capita growth. I don't think we're necessarily headed to a drop in per capita growth. Realistically, we have to reduce human population. We're stressing the planet's ability to carry us. We can do this the easy way with a drop in birth rates or we can do this the hard way with a new Black Death. I'm actually impressed with our innate ability to regulate our birth rate in accordance with our environment. Malthus really was wrong! 

The thing is, per capita economic growth so far has also come with per-capita increase in exploitation of the planet's resources. For example:
"The material footprint per capita has also increased at an alarming rate. In 1990, about 8.1 metric tons of natural resources were used to satisfy an individual’s needs. In 2017, that rose to 12.2 metric tons, an increase of 50 per cent. That year, high-income countries had the highest material footprint per capita (approximately 27 metric tons per person), 60 per cent higher than the upper-middle-income countries (17 metric tons per person) and more than 13 times the level of low-income countries (2 metric tons per person). The material footprint of high-income countries is greater than their domestic material consumption, indicating that consumption in those countries relies on materials from other countries through international supply chains. On a per-capita basis, high-income countries rely on 9.8 metric tons of primary materials extracted elsewhere in the world."
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/#:~:text=The material footprint per capita,increase of 50 per cent.

Reducing population while continuing on with per-capita resource consumption growth as a driver of overall economic growth is no more sustainable than perpetual economic growth driven by population growth.

I see no path of perpetual economic growth within a closed system with finite resources.

[maize]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

I thought it was a fairly widespread approach, so I'm not surprised that the USA has found some way to reduce the expense of parenthood.

It's interesting that the USA does it as tax credits -- Does that mean lower deductions off every paycheck (more per month) or a bigger tax refund (once per year)? Are the credits 'worth more' to people in higher tax brackets than lower ones? I suppose that parents who don't make enough money to pay significant taxes get other low-income targeted benefits of some kind? I wonder what the pros and cons are for making it a tax-reduction strategy over a direct benefit strategy. (Just general curiosity -- no need to answer if you don't know off the top of your head.)

The tax credits are refundable, or at least a percentage of the credit is; I think there was a bill up recently to make them fully refundable, but I haven't heard that it passed. Refundable means that even if a low-income family owed no tax to start with they can get the credit, so it really is a straight-up payment from the government. It can come as monthy additions to the paycheck (i.e. less taxes deducted) otherwise it shows up when you file your tax return and get a refund.
I'd be in favor of monthly disbursements and larger amounts; there was discussion of that a couple of years ago but it didn't make it into legislation.

[prairiewindmomma]

I just settled in to read the latest edition of the Economist that came with today's mail. If anyone else subscribes, there's an article called "Emptying and fuming" p. 15-17 on how America is shrinking in places.

Notably:

*between 2010-2020, half of the country's counties lost population (p. 15)--this appears to be a rural emptying population shift to metros

*In 2008, we fell below natural replacement rate for our population, the current reproduction rate is 1.67 (p. 15)

*net immigration has been falling since the 1990s (p. 15)

*community shrink creates cascading problems--housing values fall, tax base falls (affects schools and local infrastructure funding), and the tax base in the shrinking community must rise to continue to provide services (costs remain, they are just more per capita), and businesses leave as people supporting those businesses leave (p. 16)

 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, bolt. said:

I thought it was a fairly widespread approach, so I'm not surprised that the USA has found some way to reduce the expense of parenthood.

It's interesting that the USA does it as tax credits -- Does that mean lower deductions off every paycheck (more per month) or a bigger tax refund (once per year)? Are the credits 'worth more' to people in higher tax brackets than lower ones? I suppose that parents who don't make enough money to pay significant taxes get other low-income targeted benefits of some kind? I wonder what the pros and cons are for making it a tax-reduction strategy over a direct benefit strategy. (Just general curiosity -- no need to answer if you don't know off the top of your head.)

People who make more money get less or zero child tax credits.

People whose income (after deductions and exemptions) results in less tax than the child tax credit will get a check from Uncle Sam.  (How much of the credit is "refundable" is apparently changing lately, but at least some of it still is.)

There are LOTS of other ways that the government subsidizes low income families.  To the extent that some part-time employees refuse to work full-time because they'd end up with less money after losing their low-income benefits.

[SKL]

Another aspect of the change is the reduced percentage of individuals in the younger age groups.

There should be good aspects to this.  For example:

• Criminal behaviors tend to decrease with age.
• More mature people seem to buy fewer frivolous things and switch to more sensible purchases.
• People retiring while still needing goods and services should mean a better job market for younger folks.

[maize]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

People who make more money get less or zero child tax credits.

You have to be above the 90th percentile of earners before the credits start to phase out--about $200,000 per year for singles and $400,000 for a married couple.

This means that the overwhelming majority of parents do benefit from child tax credits.

Edited April 26 by maize

[GracieJane]

We live in a fairly wealthy neighborhood of Los Angeles and IME the falling birth rate does not accurately reflect desired family size. The average age of first-time mothers has increased by a lot, which correlates with infertility viz. age-related fertility issues. IME here many women face struggles to conceive their first child, the second and third are often made prohibitively expensive by ART that isn’t covered by medical insurance. 
 

I think if there were an honest survey of US women indicating the # of desired children vs. actual living children, a lot of assumptions about the cause of the falling birth rate would be corrected.

Edited April 26 by GracieJane

[SKL]

I am wondering why the climate change activists aren't ecstatic about these changes though.

[GracieJane]

Also, the falling birth rate is largely attributable to a 79% decrease (!) in teen pregnancies since the 90s. That’s huge and not widely talked about!

Edited April 26 by GracieJane

[Faith-manor]

I agree with Prairie. I have been doing a lot of research and reading about the effects of climate change on crop collapse, reduced yield, the amount of currently used farm land that will become too arid or too flooded (in many cases both depending on the time of year) to continue to be used for food production. It is frightening and some of it is going to happen in the next 15-20 years. There will be large areas, just vast, that are going to be nearly uninhabitable. Think about last summer, the record highs, the places where touching your car or your door knob resulted in an ER visit. The American Southwest was nothing but misery. It lasted for 31 days in Phoenix. An entire month of being dangerous to be outdoors. Within the next 25 years, Arizona is likely to see 3-4 months a year like this. It is a total waste of water to try to keep up with that.

We are also seeing soil collapse in places that are still prime producers due to unsustainable, conventional farming. I am NOT pointing fingers at farmers. They have fed the world. They get paid nothing to do it. This is not on them. But, we have to face facts that a lot of soil is spent. It can no longer produce bumper crop after bumper crop of cereal grains that keep the world from starving. 

The younger generations know their future has been robbed from them. They aren't inclined to bring more people into the misery. Trying to pay them to have kids through government programs is not the answer.

I am staring directly at Alabama here who decided embryos are constitutionally protected humans while also cutting funding for food for children. We cannot continue to promote " have babies" when this is the kind of crap from our leadership.

By 2050, it is estimated that 38 trillion dollars will be used each year for the endless recoveries from climate disasters...the annual "500 year" floods, mudslides, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes....That kind of economic woe far outpaces low birthrate woes.

Economically the problem won't be lack of humans. The problem will be the planetary wreckage. 

I also think, for the sake of children, the big drop in teen pregnancies is a very good thing. Again, we shouldn't think of children as economic units.

[prairiewindmomma]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am wondering why the climate change activists aren't ecstatic about these changes though.

IMO, having consumed a lot of scientific papers on climate change in the last 12 months after reading a couple of horrifying headlines:

1. consumption of natural resources continues to skew higher per capita---and demand for key resources still far outstrips even a much smaller population. Optimal population, according to Paul Ehrlich, is probably around 1.5-2 billion.  We're currently at 8.

2. the decrease in birthrate we're seeing worldwide (not speaking to the US specifically) is largely because women are becoming more educated and have greater access to contraception---they are choosing to limit their family size and are starting to rise into the middle class, where their consumption demands will increase.  

3. we're in absolute immediate danger, globally, of tripping into cascading domino failure where 2C temperature rise pretty much locks in 3C which locks in 4C = complete collapse---so attention is being spent there.  We hit 1.5C rise last year, and it looks like we're tipping into 2C in the next few years if not this year. 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

If you're in the "I've never heard of this" category and you want a decent beginner book, also available on audio, try The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. https://www.amazon.com/Uninhabitable-Earth-Life-After-Warming/dp/0525576711/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2FG95JU5L5DV1&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7Cor-ItR_Da6ecHjoFF8dE9tDsNDuIa3byjxAM4kWerODyUuji6TgB5E_X2N5Jv5vNenVYsLn7wlGWRfoN8tBPWyghDk0LqWD26iXFRZT436i9vLBEG0bXUFvVk6PHcL3Gp-IrvFzrUYdD0YwBQlzqJuTu1liBhBfLmgXy41PwWupNoNooP7FeLOw2K_5MBLAYfmDT5GaHTd7UUTfiOKfHYMRb-2C1wq3RBnQ7_OSJk.2UAkNdTJQCx-Qgltd4nY4JbL4sKnuErv447bUl5BbZE&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+uninhabitable+earth&qid=1714169972&s=books&sprefix=the+uninhabi%2Cstripbooks%2C191&sr=1-1

Keep in mind that since the book has been written that new data has come out.  Although it was published in early 2019, we've been experiencing huge, huge change since then. In 2019, no one thought AMOC was likely to collapse until the end of this century at the earliest.  In 2023, we're much more concerned about that. Likewise, looking at sea temperatures and air temperatures--we're seeing actual numbers now that we were expecting around 2040-2050 in the 2019 mindset. 

ETA more resources: 

Why a degree of global temperature rise matters: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

Note that this article talks about limiting global warming to 1.5C. That is no longer possible. We're there. Note in the article the differences they point out between 1.5C and 2C in rise.  We're not looking at 2C rise on our current path. We're on the RCP 8.5 pathway on our current trajectory, which is about 4.3C by 2100. IPCC sixth annual report https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf

Edited April 26 by prairiewindmomma

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

There are LOTS of other ways that the government subsidizes low income families.  To the extent that some part-time employees refuse to work full-time because they'd end up with less money after losing their low-income benefits.

Almost a quarter of people who qualify for benefits don’t apply. 
The reason many who do can’t take raises or increased hours is because benefits don’t decrease in proportion to income. Another $100 can cost multiple hundreds in benefits and heaven knows how much in medical coverage. 

[Ausmumof3]

DH and I have a conversation sometimes around this. He is fairly anti-immigration, but also only wanted two kids. So my comment is pretty much always - well you either have babies or you need immigration.  We have less than two babies per woman so we need immigrants. 

In Australia, I do think that has the potential to lead to significant culture change. Probably not an issue in the US where the population is much larger but definitely an issue here. What that culture change is matters to me, because I want my DD to grow up in a culture where women are respected. (Which may be better or worse than the status quo depending on what direction we go). 

I also think there’s likely to be a decline in “fuzzy” jobs. If the population is smaller we need people doing the tangible stuff. At the moment in Australia, we seem to use immigration to fill many of those jobs seen as undesirable - aged care, truck driving etc.

The other aspect of immigration that gets overlooked a lot is what it does to the countries we get people from. I remember an interview with an occupational therapist from an African country - I think possibly Tanzania. He was quite upset because he’d worked hard to get some local training happening, to finally get trained occupational therapists in the country and then they all moved to the UK for better opportunities. 

Countries like Australia often target more highly qualified or trained immigrants and get them from other countries rather than training enough of our own. Then once here, we sometimes under employ them in our own country where they aren’t even working in the capacity they’re trained for.  

 

[frogger]

Our school district is trying to close 6 schools but it doesn't matter which schools they close; those parents will freak. It happens every time but we have lost 6000 students since 2010. How can they not close schools? I suppose everyone will just say it should be the other guy's school. 🤷‍♀️

[Ausmumof3]

The other piece to this puzzle is aside from aging, what percentage of the population is healthy and well enough to keep things running. I know percentage of long term sick has increased a lot in UK since Covid, I think we’ve been somewhat shielded from those effects in Australia. But we still have an increase in disability etc over the last few years from various factors 

[bookbard]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

DH and I have a conversation sometimes around this. He is fairly anti-immigration, but also only wanted two kids. So my comment is pretty much always - well you either have babies or you need immigration.  We have less than two babies per woman so we need immigrants. 

Yes. In Australia, we will continue to fill needed positions through immigration, which I don't think is a bad thing if it's done properly. Our current culture is a pretty rich mix of different backgrounds, and I think it leads to secularisation, because when you have such a mix, you can't privilege one religion over another - which again, I think is a good thing. On the other hand, I agree that we should be strengthening resources in people's own countries so they don't need to immigrate, because you lose so much - family, culture, language - when you leave. 

I wonder though whether people having fewer children leads to an increase or decrease in valuing children. You'd think that if they were rare, they'd be valued, right? But I don't know - I feel like often in the media parents are portrayed as selfish for even having kids, and selfish for wanting them out in public at all. On the other hand, pets seem to be filling that gap, and people are starting to bring pets into places they traditionally wouldn't (eg stores). There's a lot of complaints about vet care being so expensive (which it is!!) and I was imagining one day that the government would set up some kind of medicare for pets, where the whole population pays in so that people can take care of their five dogs. I mean, it isn't the fault of the dogs, right? 

 

3 hours ago, SKL said:

I am wondering why the climate change activists aren't ecstatic about these changes though.

Because it's the rich minority who do most of the damage, and who can still have kids (look at Elon Musk). Just 60 companies are the source of almost the entire world's plastic problem. 

[maize]

2 minutes ago, bookbard said:

On the other hand, pets seem to be filling that gap, and people are starting to bring pets into places they traditionally wouldn't (eg stores). 

This is another thing that is rarely talked about. I'm not anti-pet, but we can't pretend that our billion+ companion animals (and their feral relatives) aren't putting yet more strain on the planet's resources.

[SHP]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

Our school district is trying to close 6 schools but it doesn't matter which schools they close; those parents will freak. It happens every time but we have lost 6000 students since 2010. How can they not close schools? I suppose everyone will just say it should be the other guy's school. 🤷‍♀️

As a young adult I moved to a district that had been shrinking and was shuttering schools. Those buildings sat vacant for years, many still are. I worked with a non profit that wanted to buy one. It didn't matter which building they looked at the district wouldn't sell. They wouldn't even rent them out. They just sat vacant, being broken into and vandalized costing the district who knows how much money. 

[Heartstrings]

8 hours ago, bolt. said:

What are the chances of a program like that in the USA

😆😆😆😆😆😆

 

 

no. 
 

ETA: we do get a paltry tax credit.  The government thinks we’d all spend a monthly check on sex, drugs and rock n roll.  They don’t like handing out money that isn’t incredibly tightly controlled.  

Edited April 27 by Heartstrings

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, SHP said:

As a young adult I moved to a district that had been shrinking and was shuttering schools. Those buildings sat vacant for years, many still are. I worked with a non profit that wanted to buy one. It didn't matter which building they looked at the district wouldn't sell. They wouldn't even rent them out. They just sat vacant, being broken into and vandalized costing the district who knows how much money. 

When I was growing up in the 70s, mid Gen-X there were no babies time, my mom was a teacher in a district that was doing some serious shrinking.  She was in an ESL program that kept getting housed wherever they had room, which was often a school about to be closed.  The school buildings she once worked in were not left derelict, though, - one became a medical office building, one a senior living facility, and another an art museum.

[Heartstrings]

14 hours ago, GracieJane said:

I think if there were an honest survey of US women indicating the # of desired children vs. actual living children, a lot of assumptions about the cause of the falling birth rate would be corrected.

There was a column a while back that showed that most women would have liked more kids. 
 

Car size is oddly a big limiting factor, at least in my age cohort.  
 

I’ll try to dig up the studies.  
 

https://medium.com/migration-issues/how-big-is-the-fertility-gap-in-america-fd205e9d1a35

”What we can see is that, if you think comparing total fertility to intended fertility is most appropriate, then American woman have had below-intentions fertility since the early 1960s. If you think comparing to completed fertility is more fitting, then fertility intentions have been undershot since the 1980s.”

https://econlife.com/2021/03/family-size/

In a paper wonderfully called “Car Seats As Contraception,” researchers link the decision to have a third child to state safety regulations. When increasingly older children have to sit in a baby seat, two parent families need to fit the kids in the back seat. Most cars accommodate two children. However, you need a pricier SUV or a minivan for three children. The result, they hypothesize, is 8,000 fewer births during 2017.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27 by Heartstrings
Correct things I misremembered

[Faith-manor]

I am more than fine with the safety regulations. Cars today are WAY safer even if they are smaller due to safety features and crumple zones. With so many more millions of cars on the road, it is vital to public safety and children making it through childhood that the car seat laws, seatbelt laws, and engineering remain and continually improve. It really doesn't matter if that causes families to be smaller. Better that two children make it to adulthood given the sheer number of bad car accidents on our roads than creating less safe, large gas guzzlers and seeing more kids killed in traffic. It also isn't really an accurate view. There have always been larger vehicles that can seat many people and multiple car seats. We have never been free of that. Today, besides Siennas and Odysseys there are numerous crossovers that seat 7, and even have unique optional configurations for dealing with multiple car seats and boosters. 

At any rate, it is disturbing that the concept of having children has been commodified - staring directly at Justice Alito and his "domestic supply of infants" remark! The planet is burning, literally not metaphorically. We do not take care of the ones we already have. Currently 148 million children are starving. 1 in 5 American kids is food insecure. (Unicef statistics) We are going to see a global food crisis unlike anything humans have experienced. The answer is not to see children as something that must be born in order to serve the economy. Build a robot for heaven's sake. Kick capitalism to the curb. Spend money on providing for people not warmongering. The richest 1% produce as much carbon/pollution as the bottom 66% (CNBC, and iea.org)  We the little people are not the problem, but we will for darn sure suffer mightily.

https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/worlds-food-supply-made-insecure-climate-change

 

 

[Heartstrings]

The issue with food and with people starving is that that is a distribution choice.  We have plenty of food in this country and in the world overall, we waste more than enough food to cover every hungry person, estimates are up to 1/3 of ALL food is wasted.  We could have half as many children starting tomorrow and some of them would still be hungry because we (royal we, we as a world population) are choosing that.   We do NOT have a production problem with food, we have a distribution problem, a policy problem and a waste problem. 

Here in the US it is increasingly illegal to feed hungry people, some stores and restaurants will call the police on people getting food from the dumpster.  

 

https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/is-there-global-food-shortage-whats-causing-hunger-famine-rising-food-costs-around-world/

Why We Don’t Have a Global Food Shortage

There is no global food shortage because we produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. We produce so much food globally yet one–third of it – 1.3 billion tons – is wasted. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), all that wasted food is enough to feed 1.26 billion people: almost twice the number of undernourished people across the globe.

 

 

https://concernusa.org/news/opinion-ending-world-hunger-political-choice/

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-united-states-can-end-hunger-and-food-insecurity-for-millions-of-people/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/texas-volunteers-fined-feeding-homeless-heat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/12/08/nicest-guys-ever-arrested-while-dumpster-diving-to-feed-the-homeless/

 

 

Edited April 27 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

20 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am more than fine with the safety regulations. Cars today are WAY safer even if they are smaller due to safety features and crumple zones. With so many more millions of cars on the road, it is vital to public safety and children making it through childhood that the car seat laws, seatbelt laws, and engineering remain and continually improve. It really doesn't matter if that causes families to be smaller. Better that two children make it to adulthood given the sheer number of bad car accidents on our roads than creating less safe, large gas guzzlers and seeing more kids killed in traffic. It also isn't really an accurate view. There have always been larger vehicles that can seat many people and multiple car seats. We have never been free of that. Today, besides Siennas and Odysseys there are numerous crossovers that seat 7, and even have unique optional configurations for dealing with multiple car seats and boosters.

I'm not saying safety laws are a bad thing, just that an unintended consequence is that car size is a factor for families in choosing family size.  Mini vans and crossovers are more expensive than little 4 seater cars.  Some people choose to stop at 2 kids to avoid needing a mini van and some people choose to stop at 4 or 5 in order to stay in a minivan and not need to upgrade to a larger van or bus.  

[SKL]

One thing though, I think that all other things being equal, people with fewer children will consume more per capita.  Travel vs. staycations, eating out vs. cooking at home, sharing and re-purposing because you simply need to ... these are choices that are impacted by family size.

I was looking at some articles on this topic yesterday.  According to people who consider themselves knowledgeable, some of the "children kill the environment" warnings are either outdated or just plain wrong.  I am gonna guess the folks who came up with those numbers never lived in an average American big family.

But, I don't think a big growing population is necessary.  I have always said, and still say, that whatever US couples are doing as far as procreating is working out fine.  I don't think we need incentives to make more babies or fewer babies in the US.

We'll figure it out, albeit clumsily.

[mommyoffive]

14 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I'm not saying safety laws are a bad thing, just that an unintended consequence is that car size is a factor for families in choosing family size.  Mini vans and crossovers are more expensive than little 4 seater cars.  Some people choose to stop at 2 kids to avoid needing a mini van and some people choose to stop at 4 or 5 in order to stay in a minivan and not need to upgrade to a larger van or bus.  

It did stop us from going for more kids, one of the many reasons.  Although I wish we would have had more.  But yeah we can technically fit one more person in our minivan, but that gets harder as you have lots of car seats or adult sized kids.   And if that one more kid turned into twins, then it would have forced us to a big van.  

[maize]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

One thing though, I think that all other things being equal, people with fewer children will consume more per capita.  Travel vs. staycations, eating out vs. cooking at home, sharing and re-purposing because you simply need to ... these are choices that are impacted by family size.

I was looking at some articles on this topic yesterday.  According to people who consider themselves knowledgeable, some of the "children kill the environment" warnings are either outdated or just plain wrong.  I am gonna guess the folks who came up with those numbers never lived in an average American big family.

The evidence I have seen suggests that the environmental impact of a household tracks primarily with household income and wealth, not with the number of people in the household.

So yeah.

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

It did stop us from going for more kids, one of the many reasons.  Although I wish we would have had more.  But yeah we can technically fit one more person in our minivan, but that gets harder as you have lots of car seats or adult sized kids.   And if that one more kid turned into twins, then it would have forced us to a big van.  

It wasn't a factor for us but its a conversation I've had a dozen times sitting on park benches with moms listening to them talk through trying to decide to go for the next one or not, or if they should go ahead and get the mini van after the first one or two in case they decide that three or four is what they want they'll already have the car.   Almost everyone says that stopping at three or four is partly to avoid needing the next size up in car, almost no one wants to drive the 12 passenger vans.

Edited April 27 by Heartstrings

[SKL]

I also think that living in a big family teaches us skills and attitudes that can result in less consumption over a lifetime.