Study: Falling fertility rates are ‘demographic time bomb’

[LuckyTheDog]

In the 1960s, scholar Paul R. Ehrlich warned that a looming global population explosion would usher in mass starvation and death by the end of the 20th century.

If recent data are any indication, Ehrlich’s fears may have been somewhat misplaced. For the past several decades, fertility rates have steadily declined around the world. But many analysts agree that those falling figures are tied to another set of problems.

According to the experts, parts of the world are facing a new “demographic time bomb,” one that threatens skyrocketing health care and pension costs as populations age. The threat also could undermine the economies of many nations by robbing them of young, homegrown workers entering the labor force.

MORE HERE: http://wonkynewsnerd.com/study-falling-fertility-rates-demographic-time-bomb/

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. The solution to most economic and social problems is a 32 hour work week.

Fewer unemployed, higher value for labor, less job stress, less commuting costs, greater volunteerism and civic engagement, more consumer spending.

[davidn3600]

2. Some people need to work 60+ hours just to make ends meet

They can't afford to only work 32 hours.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I'm more concerned with the person working zero hours.

Besides, 32 hours would be straight time. The rest would be overtime.

It'd be cheaper for the employer to hire two 32 hour people than one 60 hour person

...and I'm okay with that.

[Travis_0004]

45. So everybody's standard of living can go down?

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Yup. Just like standard of living went down when FDR signed the 40 hour week.

Did y'all sleep through history class? In an economy where the average worker (if he was lucky enough to have a job at the textile mill) worked 70 hours, the FLSA succeeded and grew the economy because it constrained the supply of labor.

[LWolf]

5. They can if they get a living wage for those 32 hours,

which has to be inferred in that conversation. Or, if not, it would have to be a condition set.

[bhikkhu]

6. The other solution is higher wages

which should be entirely justifiable based on higher productivity rates and higher levels of education. If the gains of automation and technological advances were fairly distributed, then the whole conversation would be different.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Higher wages is a consequence of a constrained labor supply

The number of people un- and under-employed assures low wages.

[bhikkhu]

27. And a constrained labor supply comes from a declining birth rate.

Eventually.

Current employment demographics in the US show that record numbers of retirement-age people are holding off on retirement, and record numbers of young people are going to college rather than the workforce. All that has to shift fairly soon. With a declining birth rate here and a broken immigration policy, at some point we also get a constrained labor supply.

There are ways to look at things where nothing is good, but there are also some good potential trends.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. The US doesn't have a declining population.

Unregulated immigration is growing the workforce. The people who run this place have realized something that we haven't. A distressed workforce is in their best interest.



The above is the employment-to-population ratio. It is beyond foolish to look at this chart and argue that it's anything other than a buyers market for labor.

[bhikkhu]

67. If you break down the demographics on that...

There had been a long-term increase in labor participation during the baby boom generation years, which has long been predicted to decline when that generation begins to retire, starting about 2007.

That's what actually happened, accelerated by the recession, but looking at the cause its not exactly playing out as predicted. The baby boomers so far have been holding onto their jobs, and the labor participation rate for older workers remains at a record high. That can't go on forever, or even for very many more years.

What has been a bigger driver of the low rate is that there are record numbers of kids going to college rather than entering the workforce. I tend to think that bodes well for the future.

This is a good article on the effect of immigration on US unemployment: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-blame-game-immigration-and-unemployment

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. "The baby boomers"

are anywhere between 50 and 68 years old. They aren't retiring en masse. In fact, there are 13.5 million people between 65 and 70. There are 21.2 million people between 20 and 25. More people are entering the workforce than can be pushed out.

In the US there are roughly the same number of people between 60 and 65 as there are illegal workers.

I read the banner of the site to which you linked. "Honor, protect, promote". Right, no agenda there.

[bhikkhu]

74. You probably won't like this site either

It has a bit of obnoxious anti-Obama slant here and there, but it also has a decent amount of basic economic news. The graph shows the jobs market tightening up, which is what we'd like to see for the sake of wages rising.

And this is still not bad:

[hughee99]

14. Good for many industries, but can be problematic for those positions that require

a considerable amount of training and education, where finding additional workers can be problematic. Medical professionals (doctors and nurses in particular) is the one that immediately comes to my mind, but I'm sure there are other such professions where this is the case as well.

And this only really works if you pay them at least the same rate as they were getting for 40 hours, but I assume you meant that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. I don't care that finding additional workers "is problematic".

That's a problem that I WANT employers to have.

Labor shortage is the only thing that drives up wages.

[hughee99]

22. When labor shortages in the medical industry occur,

the problem is much bigger than wages. I was discussing a very specific industry, not all industries, and one in which labor shortages will have the consequence of creating significant issues for the larger population. It's an industry where you simply can't add 20% more qualified people easily or in a relatively short period of time.

"I'm sorry, a doctor can't see you until a week from Thursday because we've cut their hours down to 32 to drive up wages, but if you'd like to see a pre-med student at the local college, we can get you in next Monday morning, if they're not too hung over. Good luck with those mild chest pains, though."

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. When labor shortages in ANY industry occur, the industry brings in more workers.

There's nothing magic about medicine, except the arbitrarily large amounts of education required of applicants.

[hughee99]

54. "Arbitrarily large amounts of education"?

I'm done. You had a good suggestion that may work for a lot of industries, but it seems clear to me you've got some blinders on here.

If you're going to add 20% more doctors (which would mean lowering the standards for med school) AND significantly cut the eduction they receive, you're not going to be happy with the outcome, even if they're making 20% more as a result.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. How about 20% more med schools?

How about abandoning the stupid hazing ritual called residency?

How is it that Cuba can educate enough doctors that it's one of their main exports, and despite spending $414 per capita for health care, produce health outcomes that rival those here in the US which spends $8200?

http://kff.org/global-indicator/health-expenditure-per-capita/

There are too few medical school graduates because doctors are smart enough to know that constraining the supply of doctors keeps salaries high, and are in positions to control that supply.

Maybe, for a change, import some labor that we actually need - doctors.

[hughee99]

60. Because Cuba spent YEARS building the infrastructure to do this.

Med schools didn't pop up overnight. It also helps that that Cuba has a population density greater than all but 10 US states which means it's easier for someone to visit a hospital relatively close by with the care they need (much in the same way it's easier to see a good specialist in the Northeast than it is in the Midwest)

Even if you build 20% more med schools, they're STILL 4 years away from producing any doctors, and that's if you completely skip residency (which I'm not convinced is a good idea either).

Can the US get there eventually? Sure, but it's not going to happen over night, or even in a relatively short period of time so there should some sort of plan for this rather than just expecting market forces to work this all out for us.

Sure, you can try to fill the gap in the meantime by importing doctors (which the US already does) if you want. Why not, we've already exploited poorer countries for so many other resource, let's lure their doctors away too. Screwing over some other country's medical care system is a small price to pay so our doctors can make 20% more.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. It would happen overnight if consumer groups were in charge of school accreditation. n/t

[hughee99]

62. If "consumer groups" (widely renown for their expertise in medical education) gave accreditation

blindly to EVERY SINGLE school that applied AND those schools had an unlimited supply of qualified staff just waiting to work, AND the necessary facilities already in place, you're still at least 4 years away from producing a single additional doctor (unless you want to cut the length of med school too).

Maybe they can go to the University of Phoenix online, I'm sure they can have an online medical school up and running in just a few weeks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Can you give me an example of another occupation...

... in which the people employed in that occupation exercise direct control over how many people are educated to do it?

[hughee99]

73. How about the legal profession?

You have to be accepted to law school and then pass the bar exam to get in. Most states, although not all, require law school. Not that I'm saying there's a problem with there not being enough lawyers, but that would seem to be an example you're looking for.

[yeoman6987]

29. It is already 35-hour work week

I have many friends that work 35-hours and they are accountants, professors, and many other professions. I work 40-hours but just lucky. I imagine if I need to leave my current job, I would get one of those new 35-hour jobs. Lunch is no longer paid for is one thing that has changed. Before they allowed you to work 9 hours and have an hour lunch (unpaid). Now they allow you to work 8-hours with one-hour of unpaid lunch.

[caraher]

56. How does a professor work a 35 hour week?

Certainly not a full-time tenure-line professor anyplace I know about! "Contact hours" are going to be (typically) well under 20/week, but the job is a lot more than just classroom hours plus prep and grading time.

But there can be a lot of flexibility, which is nice. After all, I do get to choose which 80 hours to work...

[Iris]

50. easier on families - allows women with children to stay in the workforce

[SoCalDem]

3. When Ehrlich was researching his ideas, the effects of the petrochemicals

industry was still rather sketchy. People born after that era have spent a LIFETIME being exposed to a toxic soup, and fertility has been affected.. Also, economics these days has pressed people into delaying child bearing past the time of "easy" impregnation.

A doctor once told me that the optimal ages to become pregnant is 15-24..after that it's pretty much a crap-shoot.

[bhikkhu]

7. The sky is falling either way you look at it

if you are prone to worrying about the sky falling. I think continued population growth (with a continued growth in resource depletion and so forth) is a much more difficult problem to solve. If you look at the big picture, the decline in population growth rates is really about the only good news out there.

Automation and technological advances have made it possible for a much smaller population to provide the goods and services needed by the whole. What is lacking is a good system for fair distribution, and going back to labor-intensive methods requiring a continually growing population of young workers isn't a solution.

[nomorenomore08]

25. +1

I think you're on the right track here.

[geek tragedy]

8. the planet would be far better off if there were zero human babies

being born.

so, not gonna worry about some places not contributing to a catatrophic increase in human population

[econoclast]

11. I am always fascinated

By those expressing this line of argument. If you REALLY believe that there are a castrophic amount of humans on the planet...why not follow that logic to its conclusion and 'vote with your feet' as they say. Why not show the courage of your convictions and do your part to help the planet by ceasing to consume resources immediately?

I am reminded of the story about Bertrand Russell receiving a letter from an eminent logician explaining that she was a solipsist.

(Note - solipsism holds that no reality exists other than one's own mind and the external world has no independent existence.)

Russell replied .... My dear woman, if you are really a solipsist, why on earth are you writing to ME?!?!

[geek tragedy]

12. I am always bored by sophistry.

Ergo, with a yawn I must humbly dismiss your suggestion that I should go ahead and kill myself if I believe human population growth is a problem.

Just as I dismiss the challenges from various assorted wingnuts who challenge liberals in favor of higher taxes to give away all of their money to the government.

The truth, as you well know, is that there is only so much biomass on this planet, and that human beings are consuming an exponentially increasing portion of it, and that human population growth, unchecked, means that as a matter of mathematical certainty that human beings will eventually wind up eating and shitting this planet into an unsustainable, unlivable hellhole.

[econoclast]

13. Not a suggestion

As I am not in the 'catastrophic overpopulation' camp I in fact hope you don't!!!!

But a genuine question. How do you hold the position and decline to act?

[betterdemsonly]

19. That is bull

Korea and Japan have lower birth rates and they enforce no one child policy.

[geek tragedy]

20. they also have overwhelming population density

Japan has a population density 3X what China has, and Korea has 4X China's population density.

I guess if people can't afford children, maybe they'll stop having them, but that model certainly hasn't translated outside of Korea and Japan.

[econoclast]

21. Quite frankly .... You frighten me

'Ruthlessly enforced'. Indeed.

Sound like the love child of Parson Malthus and Reinhard Heydrich.

[geek tragedy]

23. 16.5 trillion people on planet earth does not frighten you?

Or does the prospect of mass starvation, anarchy, war, and disease frighten you less?

Do tell us what you suggest will be the natural, freedom-loving solution is to controlling the population growth of homo sapiens.

[malaise]

38. China abandoned its one child policy

last year

[mathematic]

39. Someone bored by sophistry just extrapolated exponential growth 2000 years into the future.

My mind is blown. Why'd you stop at 2000? If you went to 4000, you'd be able to say that there isn't enough matter in the universe to make all the humans on Earth.

Also, not like it matters with your ridiculous argument, but your math appears to be very wrong. At 1.2% growth, in 2000 years there will* be 184 quintillion humans on Earth.


(*LOL)

[geek tragedy]

46. well, then, we agree that SOMETHING has to rein in the rate of human population growth

the question is what mechanism will achieve that?

Will it be letting excess babies starve? Will it be imposing huge financial costs on people who choose to procreate? Or will it be flat-out government bans on excess procreation?

Current human notions of morality and liberty will at some point have to go out the window if we're to manage ourselves as a species.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

59. "China's "one child policy" will have to be expanded to the entire planet, and ruthlessly enforced"

LOL. Is this geek tragedy spouting anti-choice dogma, or just your attempt at satirical "humor"?

[geek tragedy]

63. maybe a bit of overdramatization.

we'll see how family planning does in the centuries to come, with religious fundamentalism gaining all over the place.

[bhikkhu]

28. There are many ways to act, and I think at this point individual decision is best

as in - its better to do what you can yourself, and not to be too preoccupied with other people's decisions. Some things offend me, but I can't do anything about them; I can only directly affect what I do myself.

On my part, I bicycle rather than drive most of the time, I don't waste water, I vote for candidates who are anti-war (war being one of the biggest over-looked resource wastes), I keep a modest house and don't aspire to more, I am happy "living with less", and happy to re-enforce the idea that that's just fine whenever possible.

[yeoman6987]

30. Oh goodness

The entire world can fit in Texas. We DEFINITELY are NOT running out of room. Where do you get your info?

[geek tragedy]

32. Science.

Because, you know, biology textbooks teach us that people do not eat space, but rather other biological organisms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911196/

Currently, humans consume around 15% of the world's biological output.

Multiply the population by 10, or by 100, and you have the apocalypse.

There is a hard ceiling on the number of people this planet can sustain.

Human population growth will relatively soon need to be brought to zero.

[yeoman6987]

34. You don't think we could sustain a 10 billion person World?

I think we can. We are fine especially if we are only using 15 percent of our output.

[geek tragedy]

35. 10 billion? I'm talking 90 billion in 1000 years, 16.5 trillion

in 2000 years.

1.2% growth, compounded, produces scary big numbers.

We'll be at 10 billion by 2041. 27 years from now. Hundred years from now we'll be at 23 billion.

Clock is ticking.

[customerserviceguy]

37. It's folly to extrapolate the numbers out that far

Industrial societies reproduce at far lower rates than agricultural ones. If we can transistion more nations to manufacturing and service economies, we can brake population expansion.

My idea? Come up with something in pill form that virtually guarantees the conception of a male child. Make sure it spreads through the black market, and in a couple of generations the most backwards, sexist societies will cease to exist, or they'll change to value girls/women than they do right now. That in itself will cause birthrates to decline.

[geek tragedy]

47. the point I'm making is that something has to change that number.

the curve has to bent, and sharply.

How does that happen?

Humanity's social institutions have a pretty pathetic record of coping with reality.

[customerserviceguy]

64. Agreed

Industrialization and equal treatment of women will go a long ways towards bending that curve. We've already seen that in the developed nations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. It's already changing; I don't know where you got 1.2%, but that's out of date

From the UN figures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Yearly growth peaked at 2.11% in 1968. By 1994 it was down to 1.47%; 1.20% in 2009, and 1.16% in 2013.

[geek tragedy]

68. Ya. I guess I was seeing the revanchism from the

forced Birthers and fundamentalists as eroding family planning gains.

[yeoman6987]

43. I admit you are right

Those numbers are scary.

[Squinch]

44. If you are really against pollution, why don't you stop driving a car and heating your home?

All your attempts at erudition aside, that is a very silly question.

[Orsino]

72. Ah. The moral equivalence of contraception and suicide.

I was wondering when that would show up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. DU: located at the intersection of nihilism and misanthropy n/t

[geek tragedy]

53. and science, and math. nt

[LWolf]

9. When the global population falls to, let's say,

the point it was at 200 years ago, then we might start worrying about fertility rates. Continuing to allow the population to explode because we don't want to deal with supporting a generation of old people is short-sighted, to say the least. That will lead to worse than economic hardship for capitalists.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#pastfuture

[Brigid]

10. I think the population drop will be disruptive for a while, but will benefit us in the long term.

Many historians argue that the Black Plague was sort of a blessing in disguise, despite the horrible suffering it brought. They say that Europe had been formerly overpopulated, and a lower population afterward helped increase wages and increase the food supply. Labor shortages were also behind the development of labor-saving devices such as the printing press. Inheritance laws had to change. The feudal system was pretty much destroyed. It may have helped set the stage for the Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death

[betterdemsonly]

15. Why nothing will happen to change this.

I don't think the Koreans and Japanese are alarmed because I think being more intimate with manufacturing they know that after the race to the bottom completes, the neoliberal plan is to replace all workers with robots.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. The inherent problem: any system predicated on limitless growth ultimately fails.

The decline of the working-age population in developed countries is only part of it. There's also the looming and probably inevitable end of economic growth, within the next few decades, as resource extraction levels, especially of fossil fuels, decline due to depletion.

[NYC_SKP]

26. Tough shit, people of the world. We're past the carrying capacity as it is, need to slow it down.

Asshole economists equate success with growth.

It doesn't work that way for very long.

[Xithras]

31. Or...they could lead to unprecedented increases in prosperity and technology.

History shows that labor shortages have often led to increased prosperity as wages climb, and feed technological advancement as cultures struggle to increase efficiency to counter the loss of a workforce.

A post-decline world would undoubtedly look very different from the one we see today, but there is nothing to indicate that it would be worse.

[LeftyMom]

33. Please stop spamming your blog.

[X_Digger]

57. +1 n/t

[angrychair]

36. dont tell China or India

Together they represent almost 40% of the world's population and are growing...in fact India is predicted to overtake China's population by 2045. We recently breached the 7 billion mark and the world population has grown by almost 5 billion since 1950. While European countries and the U.S. may be stagnant, others are not.

We are no longer number 1 in a great many things and unless we change our ways (drop this tea-taliban bullshit and their influence on everything from education to human rights) we will stay number 2 (pun intended).

[bemildred]

40. Not this shit again. nt

[Hekate]

41. Oh for pete's sake. The Earth now has 7 BILLION people, and climbing.

The fact that an increasing number of individuals cannot have children of their own is an individual tragedy, and yet the population of the planet keeps rising all the time.

I'm more concerned about the rise in autism, among other things. I think that increase is linked to the huge number of pollutants in our environment.

But a demographic time bomb from falling fertility rates? Uh, no.

[Hekate]

42. Oh, don't worry. Just outlaw female contraceptives.

[fried eggs]

55. I've read that earlier generations had a "village"

to help raise their kids. I go to my mother's house and she's glued to Facebook and Candy Crush, barely taking a moment to speak to her grandchild. In all honesty, I wouldn't advise anyone to have kids.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Sad to see a Harvard professor throwing fearmongering 'time bombs'

I've just watched her video, and I see that crap came from her. Oh, she acknowledges we have global warming, but then she launches into the 'time bomb' crap and how 'shocking' she finds a low birth rate. As if global warming isn't a problem at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. bringing our population down gradually to <3B over the long term would be a good thing.

Yes there will be demographic challenges, but he alternate vision of funding retirement with an ever increasing pool of young workers is insanity and will lead to a catastrophic decline.