
There are now more people over sixty-four than children younger than five - sohkamyung
https://ourworldindata.org/population-aged-65-outnumber-children
======
conmarap
I'm supposed no one has mentioned the - sort of - deterioration in our
relationships. back in the day it used to be a lot easier for two people up
meet, fall in love, get married and have kids. I'm not saying that there
weren't any forced marriages, but that's not my point. In the age of tinder we
are exposed to more and more people and possibilities. So basically it seems
like the average Joe and Betty keep holding off for the perfect mate, when
chances are they already rejected them. I'm just observing that the typical
meets are decreasing rapidly and could be to, at least partially, blame.

~~~
randomdata
More to the point, there is a curious social stigma around having children
before you enter your 30s that has developed.

The idea that you should "play the field" is part of it, but I'm not sure that
tells the whole story. There seems to have been a concerted effort to reduce
pregnancies among younger women. In fact, programs like "16 and Pregnant" and
"Teen Mom", which follow young mothers in their teens and 20s, were, according
to their creator, meant as a "cautionary tale" to reduce pregnancy rates. In
modern culture, "rural hick" even conjures up images of a young mother. Not
the image most want to portray, which is a powerful social tool.

Equally curious, once you enter your 30s all of a sudden the social norms flip
to "why haven't you had children yet?", "the clock is ticking", etc. However,
once you are in your 30s, there are some rather hard limits to how many
children you can practically have.

~~~
wasdfff
I think its less stigma but economic realities that are driving this. People
have too much debt and not enough income and are too early in their careers in
their 20s to comfortably take time off to have a kid or pay for childcare.

~~~
randomdata
_> People have too much debt_

For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary
education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The
same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations
past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take on
debt.

You no doubt describe a minority, but the majority aren't putting any effort
into picking up the slack. Birth rates are falling in all walks of life.

 _> not enough income_

Or _too much_ income? There is a very strong correlation between being poor
and having more children.

At the extreme, the women of Niger have over 7 children each, on average. Even
the least paid people in America are living like kings in comparison to the
people of Niger.

But even within America, the reason the "rural hick" is oft associated with
young mothers is because rural areas tend to be poorer and poorer people are
more likely to have more children.

 _> are too early in their careers in their 20s to comfortably take time off
to have a kid_

While the average reader on HN is certainly career driven, most people are
not. "You need to focus on your career" is a line that has been used to deter
20-somethings from having children. I'm not sure that is the same as them
actually focusing on their career. Most people simply find what work is
available to them, trudge through the day, and then go home as soon as
possible to not have to think about work again until tomorrow.

~~~
Analemma_
> For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary
> education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The
> same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations
> past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take
> on debt.

But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a
college degree have cratered, and so they're still unable to support a family.
Pick your poison: either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but
no income, and neither is a good place to start having children. College in
America now is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

~~~
randomdata
_> But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a
college degree have cratered_

Are you sure you are not confusing that with the fact that post secondary
attainment is rising, which means that those who are unable to attain a post
secondary education, and find work, due to challenges in their life
(disability, for example) take a larger share of the lower education segment?

Let me put it another way, as that may be confusing. Take two people. Let's
say one is a highly intelligent, hard working, person who had to drop out of
high school to care for his ailing parent. The other a drug addict who dropped
out of high school because the drugs started to take over his life.

The highly intelligent person has a job. The drug addict does not. His
addiction has left him unable to keep employment. Given this scenario, 50% of
those who are high school dropouts are unemployed.

Okay, now let's say the first person's parent got better and he was able to
return to high school and graduate. He is no longer in the high school dropout
category, but now the high school completion category.

That means that 100% of those who are high school dropouts are now unemployed.
If you weren't paying attention, you might think that the job market for those
who are high school dropouts cratered, but in reality nothing really changed
except a rise in high school attainment.

 _> either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but no income, and
neither is a good place to start having children._

There is never a good place to have children. But the data clearly shows that
the richer you are, the less likely you are to have children. How are you
resolving that discrepancy?

~~~
tkxxx7
> But the data clearly shows that the richer you are, the less likely you are
> to have children. How are you resolving that discrepancy?

Without taking a stand on the greater discussion here, I'd just like to add:
birth control is not all that cheap, and poorer people are much less likely to
be as educated on all the birth control options available to them anyway. I
would also reason that the feeling of having limited life prospects would make
one more likely to have kids as it becomes a larger milestone at that point.

------
johnchristopher
So, to put it simply, more and more people have to work to support more people
than before, right ?

~~~
RobertoG
Only if productivity have not increased.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
_Only if productivity have not increased._

It has not, alas.

Take cars as an example: if we were building Fort T models, then yes, they
would cost peanuts (especially Chinese copies). But for every dollar of
productivity increase we add two dollars of safety devices, emission controls
and new shiny gadgets.

~~~
gjm11
Making safer and less-polluting cars _is_ a productivity improvement: it means
people are getting better cars -- and everyone else is getting less likelihood
of getting killed in a car accident, less health damage from other people's
exhaust fumes, etc.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Right, but in the context of this discussion the cost primary function of the
car (moving my butt from one place to another) has increased, or, in the best
case, stayed the same.

~~~
mercutio2
Productivity is an economic term of art, which IS the context of this
discussion.

Productivity in the non—services sector of the economy has increased
dramatically. You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar.

There remains rigidity in the market, which doesn’t generally make it easy for
people to work 15 hour weeks to earn a 1940s income, but really, productivity
for goods has dramatically increased.

~~~
heavenlyblue
>> You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar.

Is it the stuff that works a 1/10th of the time it worked before because today
we can "optimise" for longevity?

------
crispyporkbites
I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of
30. The window to actually have them gets pretty tight, a mother aged 35 or
older is considered a geriatric mother on the NHS (basically higher risk). I'm
sure that a lot of my friends are going to find it difficult to have children
as they get older, in contrast to parents in the 80s and 90s who were mostly
having their first child in their 20s.

From my anecdotal perspective it feels like we are going to see population
growth flatlining and global population starting to decline over the next 100
years. It feels like the data is moving in that way to back that up.

This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth
going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing?

~~~
lm28469
> I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age
> of 30.

We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids
and be competitive anymore. Half of the people I know who have kids basically
delegates everything to caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and
30 min when they get back to work and kiss them goodnight.

Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women
to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional
conquests. Sprinkle a bit of consumerism over that and it's game over, kids
are too expensive, why would people do that instead of buying a nice car, the
new $2k smartphone or a trip to Venice to flex on instagram for imaginary
internet points.

I'm also inclined to believe that the hookup culture plays a huge role in the
trend, why would you want to settle down when you have a virtually limitless
pool of potentially better mates available at the tips of your fingers. Newer
generations are afraid of commitment and responsibilities, having kids in your
early 20s is more stigmatised than having a one night stand every other night
until you're 40.

~~~
rayiner
> We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids
> and be competitive anymore.

Do you have any evidence of that?

> Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to
> caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get
> back to work and kiss them goodnight.

And that’s fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being the
ones to take care of kids. Daycare workers, grandparents, etc., love the kids
too and are better equipped to keep them engaged.

Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their kids
than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine:
[https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2017/11/27/parents-...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children-
as-50-years-ago)

> One analysis of 11 rich countries estimates that the average mother spent 54
> minutes a day caring for children in 1965 but 104 minutes in 2012. Men do
> less than women, but far more than men in the past: their child-caring time
> has jumped from 16 minutes a day to 59.

~~~
malvosenior
> _And that’s fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being
> the ones to take care of kids._

There absolutely is an irreplaceable bond between natural parents and their
children that can’t be replaced. If you spend time around a lot of kids it’s
very easy to notice a happiness difference between those with a stay at home
parent and those raised by paid professionals (who are usually taking care of
many other children, unless you’re wealthy).

> _Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their
> kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine_

I mean, did we? The birth rate is dropping through the floor, marriage rates
are down, and studies show women in particular are more unhappy than ever.

As my generation ages into their 40s I see a stark happiness divide between
those that focused on their careers vs those that built families (strongly in
favor of the latter).

~~~
tptacek
According to NORC at U Chicago, general happiness for women _leads_ that of
men, and is within low single digits of its all-time peak.

[http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_PsyWellBeing15_fi...](http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_PsyWellBeing15_final_formatted.pdf)

~~~
malvosenior
Most studies contradict these findings:

[https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual...](https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf)

~~~
tptacek
Isn't the paper you're citing based on the paper I cited? The General Social
Survey is NORC.

------
vortico
I need a table with booleans "There are now more people over X then children
younger than Y."

~~~
snarf21
Here is the data: [https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/popest/datasets/201...](https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/popest/datasets/2010-2017/national/asrh/nc-est2017-alldata-r-
file01.csv)

~~~
jtuente
Couple of interesting items from this US census data (month 6):

1\. There are more people over 74 than under 5; there are more people over 80
than under 3.

2\. x = [12, 62], y = 74 - x

It's a near linear relationship between those older and those younger for this
age range, i.e. those older than 62 outnumber those under 12 and those older
than 12 outnumber those under 62. Make note that the y-intercept equals the
under 5 comparison age.

3\. There's a large difference between the populations of those age 63 and 64,
those born around 1946-47. The baby boom

------
point78
Good? We need less population, not more...

~~~
nolok
Maybe but we also need an increase in quality of life, not a decrease. While a
plateau (and even reduction) in number of people would not necessarily be a
bad thing, it needs to be in a kind of controller fashion to avoid a broken
age pyramid, ending up with too many elders incapabke of substaining their
means by themselves, and too few working age people to support them, ending
with both group living below the means we should strive for them to reach.

The age pyramid in some european countries, in china, in japan, ... Is scary,
and not because of the decline of population it represents, but because unless
we also change and adapt society accordingly there simply won't be enough
people to pay for those who can't work anymore, and the few that can pay end
up paying more than their fair share.

It's a huge issue, and nobody wants to change it much, making it feels like we
will wait until the situation explodes before adapting.

~~~
candiodari
But that ship has sailed. Population changes are notorious in how extremely
predictable they are. If we wanted a slow decline we needed to act 20 years
ago.

Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are
a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a
lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline.

So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population
growth.

And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can
only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids.
I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really
influence anything sooner.

~~~
Nasrudith
If they are predictable then many people have done an extraordinarily bad job
at projections. Because there are a lot of real howlers out there then if you
look at proven wrong population projections of the past both from Malthusian
demagogues and official sources trying to do extrapolations.

Although it is true we can only "add" at 0 for new humans if you want
workforce ready new humans immigration from elsewhere is required.

~~~
candiodari
Well Malthusians are frankly crackpots trying to make a political point which
the numbers (especially now) don't support. So that they come with numbers
that are found lacking ... is not a fair attack against serious people.

Which specific forecast did you think was so bad ?

------
iontop
There is a great book that lays out the case that the boomer's decisions,
policies, votes, actions, and inactions have destroyed our environment, our
economy, and our future. The greatest generation handed the boomers a world
with a bright future; the boomers have squandered it. Instead of investing in
critical infrastructure that would ensure a better future for their
grandchildren, they have decided to shackle us with financial ruin.

And then they blame millennials.

The book is : A Generation of Sociopaths

Thanks to the boomers, you will never be freer (as in liberty and privacy),
you will never experience the same economic opportunities, and you and your
grandkids will pay for their short sidedness long after they are dead.

------
lbj
Is it surprising that items in range 64 - 120 is larger than 0 - 5?

~~~
amalcon
Yes. Total species populations grow exponentially, and all of the growth is at
the lowest age bracket. The number of living members in each birth cohort also
decreases exponentially as the cohort ages. It follows straightforwardly from
this that population numbers by cohort will be on some log scale.

We can naively estimate the relative size of these cohorts like this:

    
    
      >>> math.log(6) - math.log(1)
      1.791759469228055
      >>> math.log(121) - math.log(65)
      0.6214032757011045
    

So we should expect a little under a 3x difference in favor of 0-5, which is
in the rough ballpark of the 2.6x difference that the chart shows for 1950.

Note that actual scientists work on this, and use much better methods than
this (with confidence intervals and all that jazz). However, this method is a
decent "try it at home" approximation, and still much better than comparing
the number of years in the age cohorts.

~~~
lbj
Fair enough - Thanks for clarifying :)

------
Asooka
Sounds about right. If people don't die young, the population pyramid becomes
a rectangle, so there should be approximately the same number of people under
5 as above max age - 5, let's say 80.

~~~
ironSkillet
That's only true if birth rates also remain constant across time, which is not
the case.

------
grandinj
The obvious question is - has the data been adjusted for the fact that people
now live longer, otherwise the conclusion is not very useful.

------
Tepix
Interesting. One piece of information is missing: When are we expected to stop
getting older on average?

------
ramblerman
It would be terrifying for population projections if it were the other way
around. This is good.

The only argument I see as a downside is the reverse population pyramid. Which
will be a problem but still a better problem to have.

------
eudora
Love the concept for the site, and love the interactive charts

------
mattmanser
Isn't 64 a rather arbitrary number?

65 used to be retirement age (for men at least), it clearly needed raising
years ago, but was hard to do politically in many countries. It is finally
being raised. When pensions were first introduced they were meant to run 5
years, not 20.

In the UK, at least, you could argue we're left paying for a generation of
Baby Boomers who are swanning about on cruises, golf days and health spas on
pensions they never paid even half towards.

Most are perfectly able to work for another 10 years at least (and if you're
younger than 50 you'll have to work those extra 10 years), but for some reason
we need economic migrants for economic growth. Even though we're not building
anywhere near enough homes, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure
for this mass immigration, and we're not training enough nurses, doctors,
teachers. We are effectively just shunting all the economic problems of the
end of continual growth 20 years down the line. We even scrapped bursaries for
student nurses! Utter madness.

And then, rather ironically, it's this same generation who overwhelmingly
voted for Brexit to even further destroy their children's and their children's
children prospects because they're not happy about the changing face of the
Britain they're not even going to live in.

~~~
MRD85
I'm Australian and my parents "retired" at 58. They're not quite on cruises
and golf days but they're perfectly capable of work even now at 63 if they
really wanted. They just don't want. Is it their fault or the governments?

~~~
glitchc
The government’s primarily, but theirs too because they are the govt., or at
least their cohort, friends and neighbours.

The proper thing to do is raise the retirement age to 75, reflecting gains in
longevity and economic reality. Other options include some form of part-time
mandatory volunteering component to earn the govt. portion of the pension.

However we do it, we are breaking a promise, if you will, that society made to
these people when they entered the work force, in that if they endure the
indignities and inequities of a salary/wage position for 35 years, then they
have earned the freedom to spend the remainder of their time as they see fit.

~~~
mattmanser
A promise made by preceding generations that didn't think it through, not by
us or people younger than us.

Politicians are now implicitly or explicitly saying that such a promise is
clearly not being made to us, why should it be honored as they're the ones who
didn't 'pay it forward'?

~~~
kingraoul3
They did, their politicians just spent it all on battleships.

------
sysbin
Entering late 20s and I’m basically hoping for a next life similar to my
parents generation. This generation has so many requirements thrown upon us
that made living a modern day prison and only unless born into an upper class
family that would pay for what have become necessary requirements to succeed
past the apartment life. Sure, some people are anomalies and had events making
the contrary but it just hinders the truth of the majority who didn’t
necessarily get worthless degrees but still struggle to pay of student loans
in an crippling economy for people without much money. I’m not sure if this is
all the product of student loans, not enough homes being built, the all sexes
need to equally work, and or people controlling capitalism getting even more
greedy. Something is making it where having a kid would make a financial
disaster even worse.

------
whiddershins
People got confused and started thinking there was something virtuous about
_not_ having kids.

Which, in my opinion, is one of the most anti-human sentiments that you could
construct.

In a weird way, one could make an abstract argument that choosing not to have
kids has an element in common with murder. It’s reducing the amount of lived
human life.

Regardless, on a practical level we are seeing non-replacement birthrate in
advanced countries ... and people are complaining about it ... while making
parenting as unpleasant as we can possibly imagine ...

This is also part of the same philosophy, but turned sideways. Instead of
viewing children as a resource they are viewed as a huge obligation, and we
seem to feel a little guilty about bringing them in to the world.

It’s fascinating.

~~~
jobigoud
> People got confused and started thinking there was something virtuous about
> not having kids.

It's simple resource management really. We have three alternatives: 1. Keep
multiplying, keep our lifestyles and fuck the planet until it's unhabitable,
2. Keep multiplying but drastically reduce our impact on the planet by
rationing ourselves, 3. decrease the multiplication rate so that at some point
we can sustain our lifestyle while not fucking the planet up.

I can't see how wanting all humans to live decently is anti-human. Until we
have good enough confidence that future humans will live decently, spawning
new ones is risky, and spawning so many that our numbers keep increasing is
just reckless.

Are you familiar with "The Repugnant Conclusion"?
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-
conclusion/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/)

