zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-19/demographic-boom-dependency-bustThe suggestion of causality running from demographic tipping points to major economic crisis is, of course, provocative. But even if there are more proximate causes and explanations, the fingerprints of demographics are indisputable. All periods of rapid economic growth, credit expansion, technological advance and financial euphoria are invariably followed by a sombre hangover. Japan blazed this trail a little earlier, but other Western economies followed in the 1990s and 2000s. These trends were unquestionably driven in part by the so-called demographic dividend, or the phase in which the baby boomers reached the age range associated with a change in savings and consumption behaviour. The demographic dividend has now turned into a drag.
Without necessarily taking issue with all you say, nor defending everything about the original article, I think the argument has more validity than you grant.I see this argument thrown out all the time, but it really isn’t a valid one. The issue has to do more with an irresponsible society in terms of borrowing/spending than anything else. The chart is nice, but it is biased to prove a point. Why not take, say, the top 100 countries in the world with highest fertility rate and include them in the chart. Or, better yet, why was Australia excluded?
The underlying issue is that countries with Ponzi-type economies will fail unless that have an exponentially increasing population. Every talks about fertility rate, yet these same people never talk about restructuring the economy to reflect reality. They obviously don’t want to do that, because that requires change, and people don’t like change.
There are plenty of examples in nature of such experiments. Various primitive societies that don’t have modern contraception reached a steady state years ago. They also don’t have Ponzi-type economies.We will almost certainly see many natural experiments in the coming decades to test the above.
Exponentially growing economies require exponentially growing populations.A growing economy needs population growth. If you want to see the effects of depopulation, visit a Kansas town where all the youth have moved out. That’s happening on a larger scale nationwid. Declining fertility rates will guarantee decades of economic decline and stagnation. The nations with the lowest fertility rates will experience economic depression or rapid immigration to keep the economy going. It’s going to be the global problem that everyone is talking about in a few years.
True, but this is not a biological or environmental phenomenon. It is cultural.Low fertility rates are spreading worldwide with some exceptions. Soon it will be global. This is a trend that is not yet taken into account in most economic forecasts, but depopulation, which will become an inevitable trend, is economically a deflationary trend. Deflation, precisely what the Federal Reserve has been fighting against every since the 1930’s is the face of the future. Low growth, deflation, aging populations, fewer workers supporting more retirees. social and economic stagnation are what the below replacement-level fertility rates hold for the future.
Ireland’s population declined substantially over the course of a century, yet they survived. It’s called adaptation.What depopulation implies is that everywhere suffers that fate. Everywhere is depressed and there is no brighter future elsewhere. Japan is becoming this already. Other countries will soon follow. No amount of planning can hide the despair.
Japan has passed the tipping point; their debt exceeds 200% of GDP. That’s just unbelievably irresponsible economics. Increasing the population simply will not solve this type of irresponsible behavior. The U.S. is going down that very same path.I wonder too if countries like Japan will experience a tipping poiint because as people lose hope for the future of their country they will be less likely to marry and have children thus creating a vicious cycle.
Well, to clarify, I am not suggesting that a country with a declining population will sink into the ocean. Of course, people adapt. The question is what exactly does that adaptaion look like.Ireland’s population declined substantially over the course of a century, yet they survived. It’s called adaptation.
The interesting question in the case of Japan is which is the root cause. One would expect to see a growing public debt when you have a declining population coupled with a public provision of retirment. It’s hard to imagine any country on the face of the earth that could have been better prepred for a demographic implosion, the Japanese were famous most of all for their high savings rate and positive balance of trade.Japan has passed the tipping point; their debt exceeds 200% of GDP. That’s just unbelievably irresponsible economics. Increasing the population simply will not solve this type of irresponsible behavior. The U.S. is going down that very same path.
The problem, though, it seems to me, is that Catholics are not bucking the trend. In fact, a good part of recent cultural decline can be traced to the effects of the sexual revolution (I never tire of recommending Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill” for documentation in that regard). Widespread acceptance of contraception delinked marriage and procreation and started the family on a path of decline. While Catholics and other Christians decry many parts of the sexual revolution, they still cling to their favorite parts of it.True, but this is not a biological or environmental phenomenon. It is cultural.
What most fascinates me about this is how easily a subculture can buck the trend and reap the rewards. If, for example, Catholics were to continue to have large families then they would, eventually, become not only the the majority but the dominant culture.
But as you rightly point out, and as the original article suggested, there are economics consequences to low fertility and depopulation.
I don’t know how to argue a secularist into getting married and having children (and not to abort them) but this should be a much simpler task among Catholics.
This is not unprecedented historically. It happened between the early Christians and Romans (though, of course, evangilization played a larger role in the transformation of the Roman empire).
Bucking the secular nonreproductive choice, though, entails not only rejecting the culture of death but also the immediate economic environment because it will surely get worse before it gets better.
Initially that was true, but the famine obviously didn’t last all the way into the 1960s.The population of Irleand declined as a result of famine. It recovered from that but now suffers the same cultural trends of Europe.
It’s a combination of declining population combined with an economic system based on an increasing population. The two are incompatible, and it will correct itself in due course.The interesting question in the case of Japan is which is the root cause.
I think we agree on the facts. But may be we disagree on whether this is a lost cause or not.The problem, though, it seems to me, is that Catholics are not bucking the trend. In fact, a good part of recent cultural decline can be traced to the effects of the sexual revolution (I never tire of recommending Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill” for documentation in that regard). Widespread acceptance of contraception delinked marriage and procreation and started the family on a path of decline. While Catholics and other Christians decry many parts of the sexual revolution, they still cling to their favorite parts of it.
A simple return to Catholic sexual morality might do a lot to reverse the depopulation trend, but I don’t see a lot of Catholics joining that bandwagon.
A great deal of this is, in fact, linked to our unbelievably irresponsible economic system. If ever increasing sums of money are taken from your pockets to support this Ponzi-type economic system, there will be less money available for you to raise children.A simple return to Catholic sexual morality might do a lot to reverse the depopulation trend, but I don’t see a lot of Catholics joining that bandwagon.
I don’t buy this. In fact, there are a host of expenses that are often cited as the cause of choosing to have fewer kids and probably the biggest is college costs.I’ll give a simple example of what I’m talking about. People focus on contraception as being a major cause of declining births. But what about in the United States having the world’s most expensive health care systems. How do you propose an uninsured 20-year-old couple have children? If the can’t afford health-care in the first place, then they certainly won’t be able to afford a second-child while taking care of the first one and have a huge hospital bill on top of that. Do that a few times and you’ll have to declare bankruptcy.
Then you disagree with young couples who have stated this exact thing on this very forum. A five-figure immediate debt burden most certainly discourages couples just getting by to avoid children in their sexual prime, in the hope getting health-care benefits down the road.I don’t buy this.
There are many costs associated with having children. The one right up front tends to have more influence than the one 18 years down the road.In fact, there are a host of expenses that are often cited as the cause of choosing to have fewer kids and probably the biggest is college costs.
It is true that there are alternatives. Society has to be retrained to use them, along with the risks that go with them. How many people do you know that have children at home nowadays without any medical intervention? This was the norm for the western world during 99.99% of its existence, and is still the norm in the third world.This argument is fundametnally untennable because it presuposes a golden age that never existed. People did not have more children in the past because they could more easily afford health care insurance or college. Are you aware of the historically high mortality rate for children? (Or the fact that few people went to college until recently?) There are many alternatives to hospitals for childbirth.
The past is an excellent guide to the future. Too bad each generation thinks they can ignore it, and ultimately suffers the consequences.That said, I don’t think we can use the past as a reliable guide to the future. Things were different then and though some would like to return to the past it is not a wise choice.
Yes, I disagree that this explains the choice not to have children.Then you disagree with young couples who have stated this exact thing on this very forum. A five-figure immediate debt burden most certainly discourages couples just getting by to avoid children in their sexual prime, in the hope getting health-care benefits down the road. There are many costs associated with having children. The one right up front tends to have more influence than the one 18 years down the road.
Actually, it is becoming more popular:It is true that there are alternatives. Society has to be retrained to use them, along with the risks that go with them. How many people do you know that have children at home nowadays without any medical intervention? This was the norm for the western world during 99.99% of its existence, and is still the norm in the third world.
It would take a castraphy of immense proportions to recreate an agricultural society.The past is an excellent guide to the future. Too bad each generation thinks they can ignore it, and ultimately suffers the consequences.