

America's Baby Bust - tokenadult
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

======
lutusp
Only a conservative bastion like the WSJ would describe a declining fertility
rate as a crisis: "The root cause of most of our problems is our declining
fertility rate."

That's true only if we accept the model where growth must be constant and
unending. Doctors call that cancer, but economists call it healthy growth.

How is it that all these intelligent people don't understand that population
growth _cannot_ be constant and perpetual? That eventually we run out of land
to put all those happy consumers?

~~~
anigbrowl
It's a crisis because the ratio of workers to retirees has been almost flipped
on its head. by 2030 two individuals payroll taxes (SSI, medicare) are
supposed to support each retiree, down froma opstware ratio of about 16 to 1.
That means either benefits have to be slashed, or taxes on the employed have
to soar. In practice there's a bit of both and more savings from reducing
waste, but there's still a big gap to close. The boomers were a big
generation, but they had far fewer children than their parents and lived far
longer. This is a pattern that has already appeared in many other countries.

You'll see movement on immigration reform this year, because it offers the
best way of correcting these imbalances without massive tax hikes or benefit
cuts, and and can get us through the hump to a longer-term population
equilibrium after 203 or so. See this elegantly-explained summary of the
issue:
[http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_versio...](http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_version_000.pdf)

~~~
czr80
Your concerns implicitly depend on productivity per worker remaining constant
over time. As that is not true, it's not clear that the changing retiree to
worker ratio is as big a problem as you claim.

~~~
anigbrowl
Wages have not risen in proportion to the worker:retiree ratio, nor have
revenues since things like payroll taxes are capped. Many productivity gains
are the result of capital investment and automation and are thus captured by
the employer.

~~~
DenisM
I'm afraid that's because the wages are linked to cost of living, rather that
outcome. Even software developers with some serious pricing power on today's
market are often reluctant to switch jobs unless they can't afford something
"essential", be it simple rent increase, or another Hawaii trip. I call this
"tragedy of employment" - people being paid at cost rather than value.

One solution to that problem might be replacing payroll tax with another tax
that is closely correlated with productivity rather than wages.

------
n1ghtm4n
OMG! America is under attack by birth control pills! Yes, women in the US
freely choosing to use birth control is _just like_ forced abortions and house
raids in China.

"The root cause of most of our problems is our declining fertility rate."

Global warming, terrorism, droughts, hurricanes... all caused by birth control
pills.

"The replacement rate is 2.1. If the average woman has more children than
that, population grows. Fewer, and it contracts. Today, America's total
fertility rate is 1.93... it hasn't been above the replacement rate in a
sustained way since the early 1970s."

Let's just ignore the immigration from countries with replacement rates far
above 2.1 that has increased the US population by _100 million_ since the
early 70s.

"First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink
within 60 years."

Overpopulation isn't a problem because the spread of birth control and women's
rights will solve the problem in 60 years. So let's block birth control and
women's rights.

"...growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation."

Horrible droughts lead to increased innovation and conservation of water. Yay
horrible droughts!

------
nikster
I have considered raising my children in the US - I had the chance to do so,
and I was comparing it with Europe and Asia. Settled on Asia because not only
are there no incentives to raise Children in the USA, there are actually huge
disincentives. \- highest education costs \- lowest quality public education
\- highest college costs, compare this to the EU and England where high
quality colleges like Cambridge and Oxford are free. In the US, having 2 kids
pretty much determines where ALL the money of a typical middle class family
will go for the next 20 years. \- Few facilities in cities, eg parks and so
on, vs EU \- High cost of hired labor vs Asia, nanny and so on \- Dont expect
the state, or anyone, to help you. \- Society as a whole hostile to children
vs Asia where children are loved by everyone.

Given the circumstances, I am surprised the birth rate is as high as it is; I
guess a lot of it is down to immigrants...

Its very hard to raise children in the US. As long as that remains so the
birth rate will remain low.

~~~
rmk2
> highest college costs, compare this to the EU and England where high quality
> colleges like Cambridge and Oxford are free.

British universities are anything but free, unless you manage to get
scholarships (which don't exist for undergrads, as far as i know) for
everything. However, in that case, the same would apply for the US...

edit: For an overview over the undergrad fees (p.a., for _home_ students) as
of last year, have a look at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12880840>

~~~
SimonInman
This is not really correct.

Although the government has recently raised the maximum tuition fees that
Universities may charge (from around £3000 to around £9000 per year), this has
not affected the financial provisions available to first-degree (i.e.
undergrad) home students.

The government supplies student loans for both tuition fees and maintenance
(i.e. living) costs, which (supposedly) only garner interest at the rate of
inflation.

In addition, there is extensive means-tested financial support available from
both the government and from Universities. I went to Oxford a few years ago
and received full financial support. My income (in addition to the ~£3K
tuition fee loan the government paid the university directly) from
loans/grants was in the region of £9000, with about £5k of that being non-
repayable. Although this was the maximum possible, it was hardly uncommon for
people to get it, or to get some proportion of it.

There are also numerous smaller grants handed out by both the university and
its constituent colleges on the basis of financial need and otherwise.

(In response to the increase in tuition fees, Michael Moritz (Sequoia Capital
chairman) donated £75m to Oxford, with the express goal of keeping tuition
fees low for disadvantaged students:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18785041>)

~~~
rmk2
The original claim was that UK universities are free, which they are not.

Just because you don't pay for it immediately does not make something free.
And even if you end up not paying back the full amount, you still end up
paying _something_ back.

Additionally, relying on loan reduction schemes or scholarships does not mean
education is free. The Scandinavian countries would have been a better
example, because education is truly and actually free there, i.e. you do not
pay anything (and as a citizen, you will probably get money -- which is not a
loan and does not have to be paid back -- from the government as financial
aid, further enabling students).

On top of that scholarships for Masters degrees (depending on subject) are
exceedingly rare (and not means-tested), with few loan options available (none
of them government-funded, if I remember correctly).

------
codewright
And people in Silicon Valley look at me weird when I say the thing I want most
is to leave SV, move back out to the country, and start a family.

Yuppies. Pfah.

Edit:

This subject dovetails into the thread about remote working (for me anyway).
There are a few number of people that would like to work with me but if
they're not willing to do so remotely (previously my main way to work) then
it's no dice.

My freedom is the cost for my labor.

------
orangecat
Another indication that we should seriously pursue life extension and
preventing the effects of aging. Overpopulation is unlikely to be an issue,
and we really don't want to have a large portion of the population incurring
high medical costs and unable to be economically productive.

------
danteembermage
I'm also wondering if there aren't deeply ingrained subconscious feelings
about raising children that come from a natural even evolutionary response to
crowding in our immediate environment. A species which naturally reduces
fertility in response to crowding will be less likely to experience explosive
growth followed by terrible crashes as all available food sources are
exhausted for mere survival. The fertility rates were really low in the NIMH
mice utopia studies when population density was high.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun>

~~~
anigbrowl
The US ranks #184 among countries in terms of population density. I don't
think your theory is borne out by reality when you consider that lots of other
countries have higher fertility rates and much larger cities with greater
overall population density.

~~~
nikster
Well if you want to live anywhere you can actually find a job youll live in a
densely populated area in the US. Sure there's a lot of land in the US and I
actually believe it will benefit the country in the long term - but at the
moment, nobody lives there.

~~~
philwelch
Even densely populated parts of the US are not densely populated. We have huge
yards, giant parking lots, and long drives from place to place. Aside from a
handful of cities, the US is designed to resist density.

------
jpxxx
TL;DR: Will everyone start having more babies already? Because otherwise we're
going to be overrun with coloreds, education, and quality of life.

Sincerely, Bill "Genocidal Dominionist Warlord Antichrist" Kristol

------
gyardley
Sure, because people have many kids as an economic strategy. If you believe
you'll need your family to take care of you in your old age, you'll have more
kids.

Of course, the reason why people don't believe they need their family's
support in their old age has a lot to do with government spending on programs
like social security - which requires a lot of younger taxpayers to sustain,
taxpayers we're no longer producing.

Eventually something will give, since situations that can't continue forever
won't. Our social safety net will weaken, and fertility will increase
accordingly. I hope this happens smoothly, and not all at once.

~~~
philwelch
I suspect that this attitude directly collides with the notion that there are
just fewer jobs to go around because of automation. If they're both true, both
problems solve each other.

~~~
waps
When social security triples (due to number of dependants), which it will do
in less than 20 years, it will require a 100% tax rate.

After that, costs will increase further.

~~~
philwelch
Not if productivity also triples. The mistake is having a separate payroll tax
earmarked for social security. If the government just eats the liability,
drops payroll taxes, and raises income taxes to compensate, it'll be fine.
Alternatively they could just supplement payroll tax out of the general fund.
It's not nearly as dire as the doomsayers make it sound.

------
heydenberk
The (inverse) correlation between life expectancy and fertility rate is quite
apparent[1].

[1] [http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#...</a>

------
purplelobster
So, let me see if I get their recommendations right: gut social security and
medicare, gut education and build more roads? Brilliant.

------
Futurebot
The solutions won't be cheap, nor will they be culturally or politically easy
to swallow in this country, but it's where we'll wind up - one way or another.
Life extension/youth preservation/immortality research (what kills more that
diseases of age, eventually? We also use "old" as a synonym for "decrepit",
but when we decouple "years alive" from "likely level of health/ability to be
independent", this problem goes away), mass roboticization (to care for the
infirm, do all the menial work, etc.), and of course, a reworked economic
system where everyone is guaranteed a basic income.

It won't be an easy road, and it's not coming any time soon - too many are too
inured to our current systems because of ideology (particuarly ideologies
informed by the Just World fallacy, Social Darwinism, the belief that
starvation is better than sloth, and mindless anti-Utopianism) will fight
tooth and nail against anything that might lead to a world like this. In the
end they'll lose, but perhaps history will credit them for making sure we
don't go too far too fast.

------
jseliger
Someone sent this to me, and I wrote about its non-, half-, and full-truths
here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/a-fools-errand-
and-...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/a-fools-errand-and-ill-play-
the-fool-jonathan-last-and-what-to-expect-when-no-ones-expecting/) .

------
pasbesoin
The problem isn't declining birth-rates. It's societies that are structured
upon ever-increasing populations.

With respect to where and when declining birth rates -- and older parents,
presenting greater health risks -- are considered to be a problem. (Such as,
individual impacts upon well-being and quality of life, and the health of the
child.) I agree with several other comments here that the contemporary U.S. is
creating significant dis-incentives, particularly for those in positions where
they are trying to prevent a decline in their own and their family and
children's socio-economic status and opportunity -- and, again, health.

The U.S. is a democracy, so I'm not trying overly to blame "someone else".

------
Zigurd
One of these predicted dire consequences is not like the others:

"Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for
consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest
aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to
preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. They cannot
sustain social-security programs because they don't have enough workers to pay
for the retirees. They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay
for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces."

I'm surprised the author did not complete the circle of irony and claim we
need to project power because of low birth-rate China.

------
dos1
> _Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon
> demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and
> conservation._

Well I'll just bet that a shrinking population could also lead to innovation!
It may mean innovation in different areas, but when pushed to their limits,
humans seem to respond more often than not with a solution.

~~~
emil0r
Not likely. There are several problems with an aging population. The two big
ones in regards to innovation is a shrinking economy and a lack of energy.
Both being driven by the young.

