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).