patrick.net

Population shrinking is very much a net-positive.

Shrinking means we can shift from having to create new wealth -- schools, roads, and general infrastructure -- to just maintain what we have.

People are afraid of a labor shortage but with U-6 over 15%:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE

we for one can stand to lose a lot of people.

People tend to think we need to grow grow grow to maintain ourselves. This is bogus. We only need to create the wealth to replace what has worn out, and whatever is consumed or lost in accident or wastage.

Now, our consumer debt economy is in fact predicated on growth, only because growth is necessary to repay debt with interest.

Regardless of the birth rate, India and China have way too many people already.

I think the Physiocrats were partially right and that economies do have carrying capacities. This is why Canada and Australia are wealthy and Bangladesh is screwed.

Some economies enjoy entrepot trade or manufacturing success, but not everyone can do so.

We are grossly overpopulated and badly need this relief.

Wow, pretty amazing change from the predictions of my childhood.

However, at the very least the burgeoning geriatric population will be in trouble without enough kids to support them. Well until they die off and then some new balance will be achieved. Expect next 20 years to be rough.

Vicente says

at the very least the burgeoning geriatric population will be in trouble without enough kids to support them

While the local government cash pension burden is rather alarming -- some locales are paying more in pensions than current salaries -- theoretically old people really don't cost that much. Their healthcare expenses can be rather large, but this is labor-intensive so at least it's providing local jobs.

30 kids needed a teacher growing up, and 20 adults will need to share a nursing assistant growing old.

Hopefully it will become more clear to people this decade that taxes simply have to be raised -- a lot. While I wouldn't bet my life on the politicians and electorate gaining some sobriety about the deficit, the probability that they will is one reason to hold off buying a house for the time being.

Higher taxes are deflationary to housing, both renting and owning.

Consumer inflation without wage inflation is also similarly deflationary.

But any wage inflation, even if it is responding only to commodity inflation, is unfortunately inflationary to rents to some extent, since landlords see this extra money on the table and will be willing to claim it.

If you think about it, replacement level of 2.3 children is actually population growth, at least in the developed world where life expectancy is 75 or so.

Say a woman has two children at 25 and 27, and her daughter has 2 when she is 30, and her daughter has 2 at age 26 and 28.

In this example, when the first woman is in her mid eighties, there are two new babies in the world (her great grandchildren), plus the other 4.

marcus says

If you think about it, replacement level of 2.3 children is actually population growth

By the way, I always think this when I hear these numbers thrown around. I think I'm right. What do you think ? In that article they talk about countries that are down to an average birth rate of 1.5(for women of childbearing age), and infer that this results in shrinking population. I disagree for reasons I outlined in a simple example above.

But I've heard this before, even from smart people. Am I missing something?

I think it's just a lower rate of exponentially increasing population.

Brain teaser yes ?

marcus says

Brain teaser yes ?

No, lifetimes just determine the total population size. If only 2 babies enter for every 2 people, the population will always be steady state, unless lifetimes are infinite.

marcus says

marcus says

If you think about it, replacement level of 2.3 children is actually population growth

By the way, I always think this when I hear these numbers thrown around. I think I’m right. What do you think ? In that article they talk about countries that are down to an average birth rate of 1.5(for women of childbearing age), and infer that this results in shrinking population. I disagree for reasons I outlined in a simple example above.

Also keep in mind that the sex ratio should be ~1:1 as well... I believe...

Troy says

30 kids needed a teacher growing up, and 20 adults will need to share a nursing assistant growing old.

Yeah I can see how that relates, because Bedpans, IV, and Colostomy bags are just like Crayons, Construction paper and glue sticks.

Troy says

If only 2 babies enter for every 2 people, the population will always be steady state

Aww, you're no fun Troy. Yeah, you're right. It is strange though, that having two kids (and everyone else doing so), might make the population 6 higher at a woman's death than it would have been if she hadn't reproduced, and yet it's only holding steady (that is the two youngest are the only two of the 6 that are going to reproduce after she dies).

I guess the corollary is that populations can drop drastically when people cut back on the reproducing.

simchaland says

Yes! Idiocracy is where we are going. At least in this country…

Why wait for the future? Fuck the Fed! Camacho for president in 2012!!!

Really though... regardless of socioeconomic level, how many genXer's or genYer's does anyone know with more than 3 (or even 2) kids?

I can't think of any that I know, although I can immediately think of several boomer families with 3+ kids.

terriDeaner says

Really though… regardless of socioeconomic level, how many genXer’s or genYer’s does anyone know with more than 3 (or even 2) kids?
I can’t think of any that I know, although I can immediately think of several boomer families with 3+ kids.

That's because most of gen Y can't afford any children regardless of socioeconomic level.

terriDeaner says

simchaland says

Yes! Idiocracy is where we are going. At least in this country…

Why wait for the future? Fuck the Fed! Camacho for president in 2012!!!

LOL!

simchaland says

Awesome.

thunderlips11 says

How is it the population in Africa is exploding when supposedly a very high number of Africans have AIDS?

People can live with AIDS now. The infection rate is 5-10% of the population and the annual death rate is 5-10% of those infected, or .25% to 1% of the population. Population growth in eg. Nigeria is higher than India so their HIV death rate does not reduce their explosive growth much.

Comparison of birth rates

thunderlips11 says

Troy says

People can live with AIDS now. The infection rate is 5-10% of the population and the annual death rate is 5-10% of those infected, or .25% to 1% of the population. Population growth in eg. Nigeria is higher than India so their HIV death rate does not reduce their explosive growth much.

Wouldn’t children of those with AIDS die before they reproduced? Does Africa treat that 5-10% to a Western Standard of care with expensive cocktail drugs, etc.?
I believe that they can somehow prevent AIDS being transmitted from mom to child. Question is: A) Is mom diagnosed soon enough and B) Can she afford care? There isn’t a hospital at every corner in Africa nor is there Medicaid in nations where people live on a dollar a day.

Not every HIV+ mother will give birth to an HIV+ child. 15-30% of children born to HIV+ mothers who have not been treated turn out to be HIV+. A further 5-20% of these children of untreated mothers will become HIV+ through breastfeeding. Without treatment 50% of these HIV+ children die by the age of 2. (Statistics from the Avert website)

If you follow the link above you will see what treatments are available to treat an HIV+ mother and child to prevent transmission.

If you assume no treatment for the HIV+ mother or child and the HIV+ mother breastfeeds the child you will see anywhere from 20-50% of the children become HIV+ who were born to mothers who are HIV+. So if you are assuming 5-10% infection rates in a region, then you have about a 1.0%-5.0% HIV transmission rate for children being born to all mothers while assuming that the HIV+ mothers receive no treatment and that all of the HIV+ mothers breastfeed their children. It can slow population increase but not halt it most likely, even without treatment where infection rates are 5-10%, if those infection rates hold steady.

But there are countries where there are higher rates of transmission. In 2010 the infection rates of Zimbabwe and Zambia were 10-15% of adults. South Africa appears have had a higher rate of 17.8% in 2010. In 2010 Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland had the highest infection rates 24.8%, 23.6%, 25.9% respectively. (Statistics from the Avert website)

In those countries population growth (rates from Index Mundi website) is as follows:

Zimbabwe (projected 2011): 3.13%
Zambia (projected 2011): 3.13%
South Africa (projected 2011): -.38%
Botswana (projected 2011): 1.78%
Lesotho (projected 2011): .28%
Swaziland (projected 2011): 1.21%

In those countries the population growth has slowed significantly due to AIDS. It does appear that the growth rates are showing that their population growth is around the 0 mark where they aren't growing but they aren't declining sigificantly.

If you read elsewhere on the Avert website you can learn about efforts to get treatment and prevention into these countries and others where HIV is prevalent. Much progress has been made, but there is a long way to go.

SF ace says

How can the world be shrinking when every projection published have 9B people by around 2045-2050? 2B more people or 7X the entire population of the US.

I might be able to rectify this issue if you provided a source... failing that, consider that the age structure of the population (as discussed in the article and one of my comments above) and shifting demographics could probably account for this projection of shortish term apparent population size increase.

Troy says

No, lifetimes just determine the total population size. If only 2 babies enter for every 2 people, the population will always be steady state, unless lifetimes are infinite.

Actually it's 2.3. Because:
1. In a normal situation male/female newborn ratio is about 52/48. This is caused by diffrent velocity of spermatozoids with male/female genes.

2. There is infant mortality.