Congrats to the World on Having Fewer Kids
November 1st, 2009 . by economistmom
This week’s Economist magazine has a fascinating cover story on the world’s declining fertility rate and what it means for economic growth and the sustainability of the planet more generally. Apparently the world is starting to get our demographics “just right”–what the Economist refers to as a “Goldilocks” situation:
Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate…
[F]alling fertility is a boon for what it makes possible, which is economic growth. Demography used to be thought of as neutral for growth. But that was because, until the 1990s, there were few developing countries with records of declining fertility and rising incomes. Now there are dozens and they show that as countries move from large families and poverty into wealth and ageing they pass through a Goldilocks period: a generation or two in which fertility is neither too high nor too low and in which there are few dependent children, few dependent grandparents—and a bulge of adults in the middle who, if conditions are right, make the factories hum. For countries in demographic transition, the fall to replacement fertility is a unique and precious opportunity.
One of the most fascinating things I learned from the Economist’s longer “briefing” article is why 2.1 is the magic number–not just 2.0. And how my having four children sort of makes me “stuck in the 1970s.” Note the chart from the Economist article, below:
It’s funny, because I’ve always thought my having four kids was a good thing for society. I’m so used to thinking of the bulge of the baby boomers and how we baby boomers failed to have enough kids to support us in our old age. I’ve thought it’s always good to have more kids because then there’ll always be a working-age population large enough to support the elderly population. But of course, that neglects the fact that when you first have all those kids, they are dependent on the rest of society, not yet providers to society. And unless you’re able to give them a good education and otherwise invest wisely in their human capital, then they could still grow up to be a net drain instead of a net addition to society’s resources.
But of course, we’d better hope the kids of the baby boomers are going to be productive grown-ups, because we’re counting on them to not just support their own parents but also to support the elderly who don’t have productive kids of their own, via the higher taxes that will be needed to pay back the government debt.
In January of this year I wrote a short post about the falling fertility of Europe - not because I knew anything about it but because it was an interesting situation. I was surprised when It became the most viewed post on my blog for months. So I wrote a post about the U.S. fertility rate and that now is the top viewed post. Just recently I wrote about the world fertility rate declining http://www.rickety.us/2009/01/the-falling-fertility-of-europe/
It is a fascinating subject. As for your four children (and my five) we are merely offsetting couples that have no children - and then not even that. Many European countries (and elsewhere) are offering generous incentives for their populations to have children. These are the same governments that scared their people decades ago with over-population propaganda.
What you are seeing in the United States is a decline of fertility rates among poorer citizens. The financial costs of raising a child during times of stagnating incomes and greater unemployment is an excessive burden on lower-income parents. On the other hand, many affluent and upper middle-class income parents are having more children because they can afford it. Wealthier two-parent households have the leisure of one parent taking unpaid leave for long periods of time. As a side note, I think President Clinton’s reform of AFDC in the 1990s is another reason for the impact on population growth of lower-income families.
Greater fertility rates in the developed world (North American, Europe, Japan et al) have a damaging effect for the global environment. One more child is another addition to future CO2 emissions. Family planning is critical for our national effort in combating global warming.
Last, as more companies find labor-saving productivity solutions, we will have more working-age adults living with unemployment. A greater population fighting for fewer available jobs would be a nightmare scenario. Thanks to global market trends, we will continue to see more demand for labor in developing world nations compared to a more capital-driven economy in North America and Europe.
Our dire environment and employment situation takes precedence over retirement savings. Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer wearing a Thomas Malthus disguise.
Evan,
I don’t even know where to begin. You do recognize that the data shows that rising incomes tend to depress birth rates, not increase them which directly contradicts your first point above. I’d love to see data on the US in particular as what I was referencing was more global in nature. I’d be quite surprised however were the birth rate among lower income people not higher than among higher income people. I will now have to go look it up at the Census.
Arguing family planning (population control) as a brake on global warming opens an entire new can of worms that I won’t deal with here but I would like to understand how you propose limiting population growth and on what basis you are going to make the cost/benefit tradeoff.
Lastly, productivity has systematically expanded incomes and will very likely continue to do so. Increased productivity provides the opportunity to develop and deliver additional goods and services. There is no consistent data that I am aware of linking productivity growth to unemployment in any country.
Your last paragraph begs an explanation. I presume our dire environmental circumstance refers to AGW. I’ll leave aside all of the science debate and just ask you how you propose solving that problem and what you think the ROI is on your solution. Until then, you’re not really making an argument.
Sorry to be Merry Sunshine (it’s not my usual role)
Mark Steyn writes that Italy contained 4.6M children in the mid-70’s, and 2.6 in the 00’s. He also claimed that 40% or 1M of those were Muslim-Italians because their fertility rate was 3.5 in contrast to the indigenous fertility rate of 1.3. If those numbers are correct, and if the fertility of both groups is stable, in one more generation, Italy will have 1.2M indigenous babies, and well, a lot more Muslim-Italian babies, even without additional immigration. Whither Italy?