Ghost cities and abandoned areas with a declining population(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Ghost cities and abandoned areas with a declining population
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages
140 comments
South Korea has tremendous structural and social challenges regarding having children. Regardless of what those are it's resulted in the lowest female participation rate in the OECD and among the highest child rearing costs. On top of it, being a child in South Korea is no picnic, with absolutely crushing educational requirements that would probably be illegal in the U.S.
My prediction is that as the population shrinks, the existing physical educational infrastructure, especially in the larger cities, will help somewhat as the competition for educational resources won't be as intense.
But there's still lots of cultural challenges in terms of the approach to education and in particular college admissions (as well as college acceptance in the workforce).
My prediction is that as the population shrinks, the existing physical educational infrastructure, especially in the larger cities, will help somewhat as the competition for educational resources won't be as intense.
But there's still lots of cultural challenges in terms of the approach to education and in particular college admissions (as well as college acceptance in the workforce).
I do not think it is money. My parents were much poorer but decided to have three children. This global utopia where there is so much to do, experience visit and see. For many millennials and Z gen Netflix is more interesting that having a child. It does not help that there are extremely high expectation for being an parent.
Normally it is the middle class don't have more children. They are not poor, then kids are more expensive when you can afford things for kids, you want to invest in them, and they are not rich enough to not worry about cost. Kids in poor family will cost only food, and minimal maintenance :)
I love my child but I’m glad I had my entire 20’s and part of my 30’s to sow some wild oats and get my career out of the gutter. Unless you have a stepford wife, parenting takes away all your free time for a while.
[deleted]
Because a lot of the cost is opportunity cost, in monetary terms it will be higher for richer families.
For example, if the lower earning parent decides to stay home with the kids, that "costs" $15k/y if their take-home pay after tax is $15k, vs $100k/y if it's $100k.
For example, if the lower earning parent decides to stay home with the kids, that "costs" $15k/y if their take-home pay after tax is $15k, vs $100k/y if it's $100k.
At some point this stops being the case. Obviously if the family live on passive income and parents don’t need to work then the opportunity cost is less important. If the parents have high incomes then they can, if they are willing, afford to pay for various childcare services. However there is an emotional opportunity cost to this: parents may want to be around and not at work as their children are growing up. Though this matters less once the children are spending much of their time at school.
>most prospective parents would rather delay having children until they can achieve career stability and afford a reasonably-sized house, which is happening very late in life (if at all) compared to previous generations.
I think this was the premise of _Idiocracy_.
I think this was the premise of _Idiocracy_.
Also a lot of pressure is being put on being a child in SK so no wonder people refuse to have children and put them through a torturous schooling system.
Although I have no issue with the gist of what you wrote, I wouldn't classify South Korea as a developing country.
That was a typo, I fixed it, thank you.
> cash awards for having children being paid by developed countries are laughably far too little, too late in their intention
The developed world urgently needs far less people, not more. Either you think CO2 emissions in the developing world aren't going to keep rising as living standards improve or live in a fantasyland where first world governments worldwide are meeting conservative 4 degree warming targets quick enough.
We need far less children, this is provably the easiest solution with the greatest impact compared to every other measure combined in tackling climate change.
The developed world urgently needs far less people, not more. Either you think CO2 emissions in the developing world aren't going to keep rising as living standards improve or live in a fantasyland where first world governments worldwide are meeting conservative 4 degree warming targets quick enough.
We need far less children, this is provably the easiest solution with the greatest impact compared to every other measure combined in tackling climate change.
> We need far less children
Humm.. countries need far less children but need far more immigrants?
Humm.. countries need far less children but need far more immigrants?
> it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies
What a backwards and ill informed way of handling a declining birth rate. We should not be promoting accidental births, but instead doing everything we can to ensure couples live in a world where they WANT to bring another life into it.
- Good pay
- Safe neighborhoods
- Balance work/life
- Assurances of healthcare for themselves and their family
- Hope that the future will be even better than the already wonderful, today.
Very few of these things are true for the average worker these days. Often in the US, if you want to have kids, you are writing off your ability to ever retire.
What a backwards and ill informed way of handling a declining birth rate. We should not be promoting accidental births, but instead doing everything we can to ensure couples live in a world where they WANT to bring another life into it.
- Good pay
- Safe neighborhoods
- Balance work/life
- Assurances of healthcare for themselves and their family
- Hope that the future will be even better than the already wonderful, today.
Very few of these things are true for the average worker these days. Often in the US, if you want to have kids, you are writing off your ability to ever retire.
> instead doing everything we can to ensure couples live in a world where they WANT to bring another life into it.
Neither of those suggestions actually increased birth rates, individually or in aggregate. Pretty sure many Scandinavian countries tried all of those, and it had little to no impact on their birth rate.
Do you have any source to show improvements to birth rate?
Neither of those suggestions actually increased birth rates, individually or in aggregate. Pretty sure many Scandinavian countries tried all of those, and it had little to no impact on their birth rate.
Do you have any source to show improvements to birth rate?
So I don't think any of the above directly increases birth rate, but the one thing that people seem to be in agreement on is cheap/free daycare.
Evidence from Quebec suggests that compared to Ontario, the birth rate has increased because of subsidized day care. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/daycare-difference-quebec-fert...
The correlation here at least makes sense, because child-caring is time intensive. So you need one parent to stay at home, or go part-time, or pay out the nose for a nanny/unsubsidized spot, at least in the US.
Evidence from Quebec suggests that compared to Ontario, the birth rate has increased because of subsidized day care. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/daycare-difference-quebec-fert...
The correlation here at least makes sense, because child-caring is time intensive. So you need one parent to stay at home, or go part-time, or pay out the nose for a nanny/unsubsidized spot, at least in the US.
All those things are themselves good, and unplanned families are not good.
Falling population is good, working shortages will increase the demand for automation and result in worker dignity. We simply need a fuck-ton of immigration to amortize things a bit, until we get to post-scarcity post-growth steady state in 2100.
Falling population is good, working shortages will increase the demand for automation and result in worker dignity. We simply need a fuck-ton of immigration to amortize things a bit, until we get to post-scarcity post-growth steady state in 2100.
> Falling population is good
Depends. If population is falling everywhere, you can't have things like free healthcare or pensions, barring some medical miracle like eternal youth.
Even if you allow immigration, you're only draining something else of its population, and that's not sustainable.
> working shortages will increase the demand for automation and result in worker dignity.
That depends on power distribution. If Amazon automated its processing center, do you think that workers would benefit or just Amazon? Plus what jobs would the newly laid off be given?
But giving workers power isn't a solution either. Give them option to choose, and their jobs would never be automated. It's not in their interest to be made expendable. Not to mention the their ego would be bruised if they knew they could be made expendable.
Depends. If population is falling everywhere, you can't have things like free healthcare or pensions, barring some medical miracle like eternal youth.
Even if you allow immigration, you're only draining something else of its population, and that's not sustainable.
> working shortages will increase the demand for automation and result in worker dignity.
That depends on power distribution. If Amazon automated its processing center, do you think that workers would benefit or just Amazon? Plus what jobs would the newly laid off be given?
But giving workers power isn't a solution either. Give them option to choose, and their jobs would never be automated. It's not in their interest to be made expendable. Not to mention the their ego would be bruised if they knew they could be made expendable.
None of those things have prevented people from having kids before. In fact they are mostly inversely correlated.
Ah yes because, correlation = causation. Come on.
Example: People are citing that birth rates decline in wealthier countries, yet fail to realize that wealth in those countries is a direct function of time. People exchange their time, for wealth.
It is not enough to simply have wealth. You also need time.
Most of these "studies" people keep linking, are looking at a single variable's correlation and not controlling for anything else. Amazing to me the "science" people will accept.
Example: People are citing that birth rates decline in wealthier countries, yet fail to realize that wealth in those countries is a direct function of time. People exchange their time, for wealth.
It is not enough to simply have wealth. You also need time.
Most of these "studies" people keep linking, are looking at a single variable's correlation and not controlling for anything else. Amazing to me the "science" people will accept.
You would think that wealth/security is what matters but the stats show otherwise. People in poorer countries have more kids than in rich countries. And within developed countries, the poor have more than the middle class which in turn have more than millionaires.
Wealth itself is a horrible predictor. What people really need, is a different form of wealth:
TIME.
TIME.
being a wealthy country often means:
nuclear families + rise in dual income households = greater GDP = greater inflation = push for knowledge economy = loss of unionized workplaces = reduced workplace benefits such as defined benefit pension = increase scrutiny of worker = more educated workforce = more competition at workplace = greater time commitment towards work and self knowledge upgrade = greater demands for expensive leisure activities
Not against any step of the process that I listed above. I am just stating the societal transformation as I see it for any xyz country out there that becomes wealthy over time.
However, this model ultimately ends up treating children and sometimes marriage (And even romantic relationships to an extent) as shackles and hurdles on the road to success. And for those who still want to get into relationship and have kid(s) unfortunately means you have to work and save for a lot longer time before making it economically feasible to have kid(s).
While this may still work out in case of males, for females, unfortunately, the more they wait to have kids (hey, I am not saying anything against this -- it is their body and their choice and their is nothing wrong with this and yes, all the power to them -- I get that, thx) - the more likely they won't have as many kids as in previous generations (Due to their biological clocks).
Of course, it is always going to be down to individual will power and personality, but I am stating from common person's perspective.
nuclear families + rise in dual income households = greater GDP = greater inflation = push for knowledge economy = loss of unionized workplaces = reduced workplace benefits such as defined benefit pension = increase scrutiny of worker = more educated workforce = more competition at workplace = greater time commitment towards work and self knowledge upgrade = greater demands for expensive leisure activities
Not against any step of the process that I listed above. I am just stating the societal transformation as I see it for any xyz country out there that becomes wealthy over time.
However, this model ultimately ends up treating children and sometimes marriage (And even romantic relationships to an extent) as shackles and hurdles on the road to success. And for those who still want to get into relationship and have kid(s) unfortunately means you have to work and save for a lot longer time before making it economically feasible to have kid(s).
While this may still work out in case of males, for females, unfortunately, the more they wait to have kids (hey, I am not saying anything against this -- it is their body and their choice and their is nothing wrong with this and yes, all the power to them -- I get that, thx) - the more likely they won't have as many kids as in previous generations (Due to their biological clocks).
Of course, it is always going to be down to individual will power and personality, but I am stating from common person's perspective.
>However, this model ultimately ends up treating children and sometimes marriage (And even romantic relationships to an extent) as shackles and hurdles on the road to success.
And not just shackles in the traditional sense. Having children compounds matters because wealth and competitive advantage is largely about relative values.
If it becomes the norm that, defying economic pressures, everyone has children, culture in a democracy can force societal change in policy and business to make these conditions reasonable. On the other hand, in a highly competitive labor market, it's a chosen competitive disadvantage to have a child. Less time to devote to work, higher comp needed to support them and the family, etc. You're at a disadvantage to your peers that can sacrifice their personal lives more easily than a responsible parent can.
Case in point, I've done a large amount of contractual work. I have a friend who works in the same ecosystem and they've had to pass up on opportunities to work a bit of overtime that helped me solidify a future business relationship and contract by being there to deliver when they needed it. My friend on the other hand has a family and simply couldn't put in the extra hours in the short turnaround requested. The bias went towards me, the one with flexibility (no children but relationship with working professional who understands) to grasp these opportunities. That person shortly after had difficulty finding a new contract while I had a solid portfolio to work from. I don't like the idea because I'd like to have kids in the near future but it's quite clear you suffer a huge blow economically, in ways often seen and unseen, at least in the US.
And not just shackles in the traditional sense. Having children compounds matters because wealth and competitive advantage is largely about relative values.
If it becomes the norm that, defying economic pressures, everyone has children, culture in a democracy can force societal change in policy and business to make these conditions reasonable. On the other hand, in a highly competitive labor market, it's a chosen competitive disadvantage to have a child. Less time to devote to work, higher comp needed to support them and the family, etc. You're at a disadvantage to your peers that can sacrifice their personal lives more easily than a responsible parent can.
Case in point, I've done a large amount of contractual work. I have a friend who works in the same ecosystem and they've had to pass up on opportunities to work a bit of overtime that helped me solidify a future business relationship and contract by being there to deliver when they needed it. My friend on the other hand has a family and simply couldn't put in the extra hours in the short turnaround requested. The bias went towards me, the one with flexibility (no children but relationship with working professional who understands) to grasp these opportunities. That person shortly after had difficulty finding a new contract while I had a solid portfolio to work from. I don't like the idea because I'd like to have kids in the near future but it's quite clear you suffer a huge blow economically, in ways often seen and unseen, at least in the US.
I remember when the big tech companies started offering an egg freezing benefit in addition to IVF. I hope they also offer flexible work for new moms and dads as well.
But the US as a whole needs to do better, we are way behind the curve.
But the US as a whole needs to do better, we are way behind the curve.
When my first was born there was no paternity or maternity leave. Apparently it was unpaid FMLA or use your PTO. Thankfully it was "unlimited" PTO and I've not yet encountered any shadow limits. (Though did have to get VP approval for 15 consecutive days.)
Many places are still like this . I had to use pto in addition to working 60hours when I got back after one week for the birth of my son. I ended up leaving this job due to the stress on my marriage and health . Unfortunately many people do not have that privilege
for those outside the US, based on my quick google: PTO means "paid time off" and FMLA I think means "family and medical leave" (the abbreviation is for the family and medical leave ACT). FMLA provides provisions to take UNPAID leave. PTO seems to cover both holidays and paid sick leave.
Please correct me if I'm wrong any US person.
I'm guessing from the context of getting VP approval for 15 days compared to my wife who took off a year in approximate half-pay through various combinations of annual leave, maternity leave, and long service leave and gov payments that the talk of not bumping into shadow limits has to do with cultural expectations of how much leave you'll take and that you'll be soon back to work rather than actually they're being no shadow limits. By which I mean my wife's actual case would so obviously hit up against any shadow limit that practically no one would try it on, but I'm happy to be educated on that too...
For context, I managed to take 3 months off on about half pay through similar leave gymnastics...
Please correct me if I'm wrong any US person.
I'm guessing from the context of getting VP approval for 15 days compared to my wife who took off a year in approximate half-pay through various combinations of annual leave, maternity leave, and long service leave and gov payments that the talk of not bumping into shadow limits has to do with cultural expectations of how much leave you'll take and that you'll be soon back to work rather than actually they're being no shadow limits. By which I mean my wife's actual case would so obviously hit up against any shadow limit that practically no one would try it on, but I'm happy to be educated on that too...
For context, I managed to take 3 months off on about half pay through similar leave gymnastics...
“ being a wealthy country often means:
nuclear families”
nah, thats usually the case in poor countries. nuclear, religious, and and obedient wife.
nah, thats usually the case in poor countries. nuclear, religious, and and obedient wife.
I think they're saying nuclear families rather than multi generational households.
considering divorce rates in developed countries i believe they’re wrong
I was talking with specific regards to couples living together -- not about single/divorced/widowed folks.
And yes, I was referring to nuclear families being the norm in wealthy countries as opposed to multi-generational housing arrangements found typically in less developed countries.
And yes, I was referring to nuclear families being the norm in wealthy countries as opposed to multi-generational housing arrangements found typically in less developed countries.
A gradual decline in human population is surely a good thing? The change in demographics will cause problems. But significantly less than the problems caused by unending population growth, which could lead to rampant climate change, environmental collapse, mass migration and war.
Also different countries are in different situations. The rich, ageing countries can allow immigration from poorer countries whose populations are still growing.
Also different countries are in different situations. The rich, ageing countries can allow immigration from poorer countries whose populations are still growing.
I have one friend who has a PhD in Future Studies. He said there are benefits to a slow population decline and the downsides are completely manageable.
It's very hard to convince leaders of that though. You'll notice the conclusory comment in the FA, 'Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time.' Most will skip right past that nodding their head despite the author providing zero evidence or support for that.
I think part of that is people associate population decline with places that suffered some economic insult and lost sustainability. Mill closed everyone scattered to the winds kind of thing. That's not the same thing as declining fertility.
It's very hard to convince leaders of that though. You'll notice the conclusory comment in the FA, 'Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time.' Most will skip right past that nodding their head despite the author providing zero evidence or support for that.
I think part of that is people associate population decline with places that suffered some economic insult and lost sustainability. Mill closed everyone scattered to the winds kind of thing. That's not the same thing as declining fertility.
It's a problem for governments because it will expose the ponzi-scheme nature of their social welfare programs.
The fundamental problem is that your savings are worthless if no is one offering their labor for money. You need to maintain a working population to take care of the elderly.
When I look at projections for Japan what I see is over the next 20 years the percentage of people over 65 goes from 28% to 38%. And then just stays there.
So the end point is 1 out of 2.5 people are retirement age or more likely doing light work. And one out eight are children or teenagers.
If you go back to the high population growth years you can probably swap the percentages of children vs elderly. Leaving you with 50% of the population in the workforce. Society certainly didn't exactly fall apart then.
So the end point is 1 out of 2.5 people are retirement age or more likely doing light work. And one out eight are children or teenagers.
If you go back to the high population growth years you can probably swap the percentages of children vs elderly. Leaving you with 50% of the population in the workforce. Society certainly didn't exactly fall apart then.
There seems to be a lot of people in government to whom the idea of having less people under their control is palatable.
Every time the subject of jurisdiction splitting comes up these people come out in force.
Every time the subject of jurisdiction splitting comes up these people come out in force.
There is a fetish for growth measured aggregate statistics. Population decline threatens that mindset.
Things can be good on net but still have severe downsides you can't just ignore, and I think that's the case here. You're brushing a whole lot under the carpet with "will cause problems": falling populations mean that everything which relies on a demographic pyramid-- pensions, socialized health care, saving for retirement via the stock market, spending on municipal infrastructure-- falls apart. You can't just brush that off.
I think that is quite manageable, if the decline is gradual. Especially if there people in other, less demographically challenged countries, that are willing to emigrate.
Less demographically challenged countries are not a renewable resource. The chickens will come home to roost at some point. Sure you can bet on someone else doing the work to mitigate that problem but a lot of people are doing just that and leaving these problems untended and unsolved. Progress and easy living are not inevitable, everyone has to put the work in for things to continue improving.
>Less demographically challenged countries are not a renewable resource.
At the moment, poor people who are prepared to migrate to richer countries to get a chance at a better life are very much a renewable resource. They just keep coming. Hopefully we will move to a fairer world where this isn't the case, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
At the moment, poor people who are prepared to migrate to richer countries to get a chance at a better life are very much a renewable resource. They just keep coming. Hopefully we will move to a fairer world where this isn't the case, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
I meant that the largest (by population) countries with high birthrates are quickly entering the same demographic situation as mentioned in the article. They are being closely followed by another host of countries as rapid industrialization/modernization moves on down the line. The pool of people willing to migrate for economic reasons is shrinking. Meanwhile, we are not much closer to solving the problems that cheap overseas labour and cheap imported labour were keeping at bay. That curse even seems to be passing on to the countries where we used to draw our labour from meaning that we are now competing with them for immigrants, migrant workers, and outsourced labour. It's a fiendish game of musical chairs.
Yes, and technology will be able to do a lot more good in the world once we have the labor shortages to justify further automation.
Increasingly over the last 40 years in the developed world, in a general labor and supply glut, the only reason to automate is to fuck over your precarious workforce more than your competitor. That sucks for the regular workers and automaters alike, and I can't wait for it to change.
Increasingly over the last 40 years in the developed world, in a general labor and supply glut, the only reason to automate is to fuck over your precarious workforce more than your competitor. That sucks for the regular workers and automaters alike, and I can't wait for it to change.
When the black death killed swathes of Europe's peasants, the survivors were able to demand much better working conditions from their overlords. But I guess that is only going to happen with a declining population if there are enough jobs that robots and AI can't do.
Well the key is fighting underconsumption.
Automation is a somewhat negative feedback loop in that excess labor reduces the demand for further automation. This is why anything shirt of general A.I.—which economically is automation that spills over from jobs one tries to automate to a significant portion of others—is not revolutionary.
So a declining working age population could shrink the economy, and this would be the orthodox economist position which doesn't recognize a structural underconsumption problem. And with underconsumption I think it's a not of a toss-up, but if the underconsumption is prevented, I don't the the demographics will get in the way.
tl;dr lock in your UBI before the population peaks.
Automation is a somewhat negative feedback loop in that excess labor reduces the demand for further automation. This is why anything shirt of general A.I.—which economically is automation that spills over from jobs one tries to automate to a significant portion of others—is not revolutionary.
So a declining working age population could shrink the economy, and this would be the orthodox economist position which doesn't recognize a structural underconsumption problem. And with underconsumption I think it's a not of a toss-up, but if the underconsumption is prevented, I don't the the demographics will get in the way.
tl;dr lock in your UBI before the population peaks.
No, it’s not a good thing. Humans are apparently the only species capable of observing itself or the universe. The more people, the better, we just need to ramp up space exploration.
Space exploration is merely a matter of time. Some space missions take decades to execute. If your civilization dies out before that there is no point.
I would think 5 billion people living in some sort of balance with the environment would better be able to explore space than 50 billion people living in some sort of environmental/climate hellscape.
Also it is so energy intensive to get someone off the planet that space exploration is not going to be a viable way to control the earth's population any time soon.
A 25% decline in the human population is completely irrelevant compared to the economic growth which is raising 6 billion people from a near-subsistence existence into the middle class. Losing a few million British people is completely irrelevant as Nigeria and its 150mm people enter the developed, high-energy, economy.
The solution to climate change is a technological restructuring of human carbon usage patterns. Not fewer humans.
The solution to climate change is a technological restructuring of human carbon usage patterns. Not fewer humans.
A 25% decline in population across all the richest countries would be highly significant. But it won't be enough if people in developing countries start consuming more and more. Hopefully their populations will also start to level off and then decline as they become richer.
For the most part they already are.
Nigeria has gone from 7 to 5 since 1980, and Ethiopia from 7 to 4. Which is not declining, but certainly progress. India went from 5.5 to 2.2, nearly replacement. Bangladesh went from above 6 to 2.04. The Phillipines in particular shows a dramatic decline from 7.15 in 1960 to 2.58 today.
Nigeria has gone from 7 to 5 since 1980, and Ethiopia from 7 to 4. Which is not declining, but certainly progress. India went from 5.5 to 2.2, nearly replacement. Bangladesh went from above 6 to 2.04. The Phillipines in particular shows a dramatic decline from 7.15 in 1960 to 2.58 today.
Is that annual % population growth?
That's TFR. More comprehensive definition available here: https://populationeducation.org/what-total-fertility-rate/
Replacement rate for TFR (so, the one that would result in stable population) is considered to be 2.1 by the UN.
Replacement rate for TFR (so, the one that would result in stable population) is considered to be 2.1 by the UN.
>A vision of the future, perhaps, in a post-peak world: smaller populations crowding ever more tightly into urban centres. And outside, beyond the city limits, the wild animals prowling.
That seems inevitably tied to the increasing specialization and efficiency of agriculture. What was the original reason for humans to spread out in rural area, if not to get some farming land for yourself? Economic activity isn't much tied to land use anymore. It's seems hard to fathom any reason why would humans just go back to rural areas if not for some unforeseen technology to make this sensible, considering all the advantages living close to large metropolitan areas provide – and no, WFH isn't it.
That seems inevitably tied to the increasing specialization and efficiency of agriculture. What was the original reason for humans to spread out in rural area, if not to get some farming land for yourself? Economic activity isn't much tied to land use anymore. It's seems hard to fathom any reason why would humans just go back to rural areas if not for some unforeseen technology to make this sensible, considering all the advantages living close to large metropolitan areas provide – and no, WFH isn't it.
Some people like living in nature. With utilities already built out or alternatives like solar power for electricity and starlink for internet, people could untether themselves from urban areas all together.
Dark skies, peace, quiet. All these make me enjoy being away from conurbations. I especially dislike the lack of darkness in winter.
A future rural home will have off-grid power (solar + power wall), off-grid internet (starlink) and off-grid water is already solved. Why again do I need to be packed and stacked?
And why do we keep talking about urban life as aspirational? Many of those currently leaving SF and NYC are wealthy enough to move on a whim. These aren't flights of desperation. Why are wealthy people leaving?
And why do we keep talking about urban life as aspirational? Many of those currently leaving SF and NYC are wealthy enough to move on a whim. These aren't flights of desperation. Why are wealthy people leaving?
> Many of those currently leaving SF and NYC are wealthy enough ... Why are wealthy people leaving?
Maybe you have noticed a worldwide event this past year that temporarily impedes many of the activities people moved to SF and NYC to enjoy?
But anecdotally, most of the people I know who have left SF in the past several years were not especially wealthy (by SF standards at least) and have growing children. (This is a biased selection, since I spent lots of time at the playground.) The reasons for leaving included: rent-controlled apartment felt too small but moving to a market-rate bigger apartment was unaffordable; child care was too expensive compared to free help someplace else from grandparents / extended family; parents wanted their children to experience a suburban childhood similar to their own; parents didn't want to send their children to schools alongside poor children, but couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for private school, so preferred to move to a less economically diverse school district; parent's temporary city job finished, and the newly found job happened to be somewhere else.
The wealthier families I know have been less likely to move, since they either have a big enough home or can afford to move to one; can afford to pay for nannies etc., or can afford to have one parent stay home; can afford private school if they want; have more permanent jobs or an easier time finding a new job in the same area; ...
Maybe you have noticed a worldwide event this past year that temporarily impedes many of the activities people moved to SF and NYC to enjoy?
But anecdotally, most of the people I know who have left SF in the past several years were not especially wealthy (by SF standards at least) and have growing children. (This is a biased selection, since I spent lots of time at the playground.) The reasons for leaving included: rent-controlled apartment felt too small but moving to a market-rate bigger apartment was unaffordable; child care was too expensive compared to free help someplace else from grandparents / extended family; parents wanted their children to experience a suburban childhood similar to their own; parents didn't want to send their children to schools alongside poor children, but couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for private school, so preferred to move to a less economically diverse school district; parent's temporary city job finished, and the newly found job happened to be somewhere else.
The wealthier families I know have been less likely to move, since they either have a big enough home or can afford to move to one; can afford to pay for nannies etc., or can afford to have one parent stay home; can afford private school if they want; have more permanent jobs or an easier time finding a new job in the same area; ...
So you follow your initial argument that the exodus is covid-driven with a list of reasons not related to covid at all. So, we agree? People who are moving are those who can afford to.
And if you knew how SF schools worked, you wouldn't have written your last sentence. You leave SF schools to escape diversity - its a lottery system.
And if you knew how SF schools worked, you wouldn't have written your last sentence. You leave SF schools to escape diversity - its a lottery system.
The people I know who have left specifically due to Covid are young professionals, either single or childless couples. Yes, they could easily afford to move.
> You leave SF schools to escape diversity
That is exactly what I said. This gets euphemistically phrased as "The test scores are too low. I don't want my kid at a failing school."
> You leave SF schools to escape diversity
That is exactly what I said. This gets euphemistically phrased as "The test scores are too low. I don't want my kid at a failing school."
Interestingly enough, the opposite trend can also be observed. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113236377590902105
"I don't want my child to be in an overly competitive environment."
"I don't want my child to be in an overly competitive environment."
The vast vast majority of people who leave SF or NYC move to either the suburbs or other (cheaper) cities. Neither option is rural by any stretch of the imagination. Humans are social animals and most enjoy spending time with other humans that share interests with them which is much easier in urban environments.
This is not true and the preference for urban environments is a modern phenomenon. The Romans for example thought cities were disastrous and that any self-respecting citizen would live in a suburban or rural area.
I see no reason why remote work and self-driving cars can’t chip into the urbanization trend.
I see no reason why remote work and self-driving cars can’t chip into the urbanization trend.
[deleted]
The effects of climate change absolutely have to be taken into account when modelling population dynamics around the world, but this is almost never done.
I would really like to see a model that as a minimum includes the effects of all of the following:
* Water stress
* Effects of a prolonged forest fire season in Southern Europe
* Temperature increases
* Climate change effects on coastal communities
Also ease of migration between places should be taken into account. The population models I see usually are limited to "birthrate in this country is projected to be this number, therefore population is projected to change in this way". Which seems to be much too simplistic to me.
I would really like to see a model that as a minimum includes the effects of all of the following:
* Water stress
* Effects of a prolonged forest fire season in Southern Europe
* Temperature increases
* Climate change effects on coastal communities
Also ease of migration between places should be taken into account. The population models I see usually are limited to "birthrate in this country is projected to be this number, therefore population is projected to change in this way". Which seems to be much too simplistic to me.
Prolonged forest fires in Europe??? Is that a thing? I’ve heard of Australia having insanely massive fires (easily bigger than all of Southern Europe) and west coast US having smaller but more intense fires. Where are the fires in Southern Europe?
Google 'forest fires Portugal'.
I mentioned Southern Europe not because I would think that the fire problem there is more dire than in Australia or California but because the effects on international migration would likely be different. Affected people in Portugal have a very easy time moving to a different European country and Portugal itself is quite small. So, whereas one could argue that forest fires in the US are unlikely to affect the population dynamics of the US taken as a whole, they are in fact likely to affect population dynamics of Portugal. With people first moving to the coastal areas and Lisbon, and afterwards many moving further to some place like Germany or Scandinavia.
I mentioned Southern Europe not because I would think that the fire problem there is more dire than in Australia or California but because the effects on international migration would likely be different. Affected people in Portugal have a very easy time moving to a different European country and Portugal itself is quite small. So, whereas one could argue that forest fires in the US are unlikely to affect the population dynamics of the US taken as a whole, they are in fact likely to affect population dynamics of Portugal. With people first moving to the coastal areas and Lisbon, and afterwards many moving further to some place like Germany or Scandinavia.
Sorry - I wasn't aware that Portugal was Southern Europe my bad.
The entire population of Portugal is 10 million. I assume the effected part of Portugal is WAY less that that (given there needs to be a bunch of forrest).
But comparing population dynamics of Portugal with the US or Australia isn't apples to apples. A closer comparison would be population dynamics of California, Portugal, Victoria, New South Wales with the event of bushfires, no?
The entire population of Portugal is 10 million. I assume the effected part of Portugal is WAY less that that (given there needs to be a bunch of forrest).
But comparing population dynamics of Portugal with the US or Australia isn't apples to apples. A closer comparison would be population dynamics of California, Portugal, Victoria, New South Wales with the event of bushfires, no?
prolonged season
Greece
Greece
There is a prolonged fire season in Greece? Do you mean in 2018? It's not really seasonal.
My wife and I (USA) have a son we adopted. He has state-supplied medical insurance, without which we couldn't have.
Want people to have children? How about being able to live near extended family because of a robust economy? How about maternity & paternity leave that aren't dependant on employer? How about teaching children being a respected career? How about laws with teeth requiring employers to respect employee work/life balance, private life?
Want people to have children? How about being able to live near extended family because of a robust economy? How about maternity & paternity leave that aren't dependant on employer? How about teaching children being a respected career? How about laws with teeth requiring employers to respect employee work/life balance, private life?
Latvia went approximately -30% in 30 years, from 2.6610^6 in 1990 to 1.89410^6 in 2020. Further decreases are expected to bring this to under 1.5*10^6 in 2050.
These numbers are massive, _and_ they underestimate the change in the countryside and smaller cities. Many don't even bother unregistering from their native country when emigrating. There is also massive internal migration of youth to the capital Riga. That's the main reason the capital's population is more or less stable...
These numbers are massive, _and_ they underestimate the change in the countryside and smaller cities. Many don't even bother unregistering from their native country when emigrating. There is also massive internal migration of youth to the capital Riga. That's the main reason the capital's population is more or less stable...
It's really hard for me to get upset by this. If people want fewer children, great!
Yes, I understand the pyramid problem of caring for people who can no longer care for themselves, but socializing it (i.e. no leaving the burden to fall directly on the adult children, taking them out of the workforce) is ignored or condemned in most OECD countries. And increasing automation and efficiency should free more people do do these caring tasks, and reduce cost of living.
Yes, I understand the pyramid problem of caring for people who can no longer care for themselves, but socializing it (i.e. no leaving the burden to fall directly on the adult children, taking them out of the workforce) is ignored or condemned in most OECD countries. And increasing automation and efficiency should free more people do do these caring tasks, and reduce cost of living.
I thought these were some very eye opening stats:
“ there are 1.97 cars per U.S. household, but in Des Moines, Iowa, there are 19 parking spaces per household. In Jackson, Wyoming, there are 27. “
The article goes on to discuss how parking lots are major opportunity sites for housing development, especially in suburbs. This worked well in downtown Oakland, where from ~1998-2008 there were 10k units built, many on former parking lots. This has the benefit of reducing gentrification impacts.
“ there are 1.97 cars per U.S. household, but in Des Moines, Iowa, there are 19 parking spaces per household. In Jackson, Wyoming, there are 27. “
The article goes on to discuss how parking lots are major opportunity sites for housing development, especially in suburbs. This worked well in downtown Oakland, where from ~1998-2008 there were 10k units built, many on former parking lots. This has the benefit of reducing gentrification impacts.
Jackson Wyoming gets a lot of tourists in the summer, probably way more than they have residents, and most come by car...
Holiday towns really should not be considered as lessons to take for good urbanism. Most tourist towns would have their desirable tourism qualities destroyed if they became a land of usually-empty condos like Benidorm.
If you look at Zillow, Jackson makes Seattle look cheap, you can get a smallish townhome for under a million, but everything else is in the multi million range.
I would imagine that, pre-COVID & WFH, the salary to housing ratio would probably be worse, though. Tourism jobs, particularly seasonal ones, don't pay all that well.
A lot of rich retirees, and the only blue county in Wyoming. It might be an interesting place to WFH from, though that part of the country isn’t cheap, even crossing over into Montana things are unusually expensive.
There is no problem here. We should be happy that this unsustainable all-consuming population growth is slowly coming to an end. Not having children is by far the best thing you can do for the environment and the world as a whole.
Agreed.
Dispassionately, we have to accept that we cannot bring the entire planet up to western standards of living and life expectancy.
The planet cant support it, based on our current technology and practive. Unless something changes in how we manage the planet, we'll end up destroying it.
Dispassionately, we have to accept that we cannot bring the entire planet up to western standards of living and life expectancy.
The planet cant support it, based on our current technology and practive. Unless something changes in how we manage the planet, we'll end up destroying it.
When I was a teenager my family decided to dedicate one of our preciously few vacation to visiting my father's hometown. It was a town that was built and existed for two things: farming and oil. The oil dried up two generations ago and it threw the town into poverty and disrepair. My father escaped to "the city", the Army, college and a better life. His siblings and other relatives held on for as long as they could until eventually the entire clan of dozens had left or passed away. For decades they refused to contact or talk to my father, thinking him a "traitor to the family" with his fancy college degree and overseas adventures. From time to time two of his brothers would keep in touch, the common thread to their story was time spent in the military and overseas as well.
The town was a ruin. Beautiful turn of the 20th century facades were crumbling, what was once a bustling town square was overgrown and had an abandoned truck left in the middle of it. The roads were in disrepair. All commerce of any kind had moved to another town a few miles away and existed solely of a couple eateries, a drug store, a small bank, and some farm supply stores.
We drove aimlessly around as my father explained what this piece of abandoned oil pumping equipment was for or about some childhood adventure he had had pushing one of his polio paralyzed brothers around in his wheelchair or how they had engaged in minor industry to make the $.05 for an ice cream. Rather than a fond trip through nostalgia, the crumbling and abandoned state of the area was hard on him.
These areas that are both economically depressed and depopulating slide into poverty, drug dependency, and most recently pointless, embarrassing, and dangerous political radicalization. Industry is not coming back to these place, the oil is dried up, the mill has shut down, the mine is all dug out, and so on. People stay because of memories and family and sometimes "history and heritage". In the case of my father they chose to shame him for decades for abandoning them. It's kind of cult-like in a way.
It seems simple to solve, move! Migrate to where the jobs are. But beyond these emotional circumstances that nail people to these failing areas, there is a difficult monetary restraint. It's expensive to move elsewhere, especially with an established multigenerational family. It means abandoning functioning domiciles, maybe vehicles or even business relationships with no guarantee of success.
We pay people to stay where they are, even if there's no long-term prospect, but I would support a "Move America!" program that offered some kind of incentive for people to move to areas with better economic outlook. This means cities for the most part.
Both parties don't want this because this means a massive transformation in the politics of the urban/rural divide.
The town was a ruin. Beautiful turn of the 20th century facades were crumbling, what was once a bustling town square was overgrown and had an abandoned truck left in the middle of it. The roads were in disrepair. All commerce of any kind had moved to another town a few miles away and existed solely of a couple eateries, a drug store, a small bank, and some farm supply stores.
We drove aimlessly around as my father explained what this piece of abandoned oil pumping equipment was for or about some childhood adventure he had had pushing one of his polio paralyzed brothers around in his wheelchair or how they had engaged in minor industry to make the $.05 for an ice cream. Rather than a fond trip through nostalgia, the crumbling and abandoned state of the area was hard on him.
These areas that are both economically depressed and depopulating slide into poverty, drug dependency, and most recently pointless, embarrassing, and dangerous political radicalization. Industry is not coming back to these place, the oil is dried up, the mill has shut down, the mine is all dug out, and so on. People stay because of memories and family and sometimes "history and heritage". In the case of my father they chose to shame him for decades for abandoning them. It's kind of cult-like in a way.
It seems simple to solve, move! Migrate to where the jobs are. But beyond these emotional circumstances that nail people to these failing areas, there is a difficult monetary restraint. It's expensive to move elsewhere, especially with an established multigenerational family. It means abandoning functioning domiciles, maybe vehicles or even business relationships with no guarantee of success.
We pay people to stay where they are, even if there's no long-term prospect, but I would support a "Move America!" program that offered some kind of incentive for people to move to areas with better economic outlook. This means cities for the most part.
Both parties don't want this because this means a massive transformation in the politics of the urban/rural divide.
100%, what is even crazier to me is that (at least before covid) the US rates of families moving had declining and was at the lowest point it had been for over 100 years. The modern style of home ownership (30 year mortgage, house in the suburbs, local control of land use) has really deeply screwed up many economic feedback mechanisms that in previous generations powered the economic engine of the US. The economic history of our nation is a history of people moving east to west to new opportunity (both 100s of years ago to farm the land, extract resource and displace native peoples, and today to move to high productivity jobs near low cost housing in sunbelt cities), as well as people moving south to north to flee the Jim Crow south and a rentier economy based on the dispossession of black farmers. It should be easier to move, we should reintroduce the modern equivalent of "boarding houses", and the lowest tier of housing in urban centers should be much less expensive.
There was zero assistance in the past to help people move to areas with perceived better opportunity. Why should there be now?
Because your economy is not living up to it's potential. You can clearly see it in the lack of growth. China has changed rapidly and that means the US has to change rapidly.
>>we should reintroduce the modern equivalent of "boarding houses"
In Ireland, this is called co-living, and has faced such backlash that new co-living developments have been effectively banned.
In Ireland, this is called co-living, and has faced such backlash that new co-living developments have been effectively banned.
That's a very weird equivalence. I really can't see how living in a boarding house is anything like co-living?
A boarding house is generally someone's primary residence where the owner lets out one or two spare bedrooms to lodgers and often provides them with meals and the like. They were mainly used by the transient, single and/or poor. Boarding houses hardly exist any more in the west. The classic boarding house owner was a widow back in the day when employment opportunities for elderly women were fairly bleak.
Co-living has grown in the last decade in many wealthy western cities and provides accommodation which is somewhere between staying in a motel and renting a studio apartment. It's generally more expensive than renting a studio - because of the flexibility - and typically targets visiting professional workers or wealthy students.
A boarding house is generally someone's primary residence where the owner lets out one or two spare bedrooms to lodgers and often provides them with meals and the like. They were mainly used by the transient, single and/or poor. Boarding houses hardly exist any more in the west. The classic boarding house owner was a widow back in the day when employment opportunities for elderly women were fairly bleak.
Co-living has grown in the last decade in many wealthy western cities and provides accommodation which is somewhere between staying in a motel and renting a studio apartment. It's generally more expensive than renting a studio - because of the flexibility - and typically targets visiting professional workers or wealthy students.
I see co-living as a natural progression/commercialization of boarding houses. Maybe I'm completely wrong on that. But I see the Wikipedia article on co-living gives boarding houses as the origin of the concept.
>>and typically targets visiting professional workers or wealthy students.
I believe the official reason for the ban was that co-living developments were crowding out all other types of housing, forcing people outside of those two categories to rent them.
>>and typically targets visiting professional workers or wealthy students.
I believe the official reason for the ban was that co-living developments were crowding out all other types of housing, forcing people outside of those two categories to rent them.
That's a real bummer, but keep in mind by American standards plain old "apartments" are radical enough.
Well there are two ways to move. One is to move businesses to the people or two, pay people to move.
Cities are no panacea either. Expensive and lots of competition for jobs. If you have multi-generational land bought and paid for then your expense can be quite low.
Now America has a unique suburban landscape that could be leveraged to great effect. Essentially pull people closer to the cities. Then you can develop a central village in each of the suburbs.
That and high speed internet for remote work.
Cities are no panacea either. Expensive and lots of competition for jobs. If you have multi-generational land bought and paid for then your expense can be quite low.
Now America has a unique suburban landscape that could be leveraged to great effect. Essentially pull people closer to the cities. Then you can develop a central village in each of the suburbs.
That and high speed internet for remote work.
It isn't a lack of incentive to move it is a lack of ability. Think about what it realistically costs to move to NYC right now, first months rent, last months rent, deposit, and even then most rentals aren't even on the market unless you pay a broker several thousand. The majority of people in rural america surveys can't handle a 400 dollar emergency let alone the cost to move to a large metro.
And before you say "well they can get the money to attempt a move by selling their family property", realise what you are saying. Sell dilapidated rural property to whom exactly? How does that happen?
Unless you have grants of approx 15-30k to bring people to cities I don't think it is even possible. And what cities would even want this to happen enough to participate? Probably places like Cleveland? Detroit? Out of the frying pan into the fire I suppose.
And before you say "well they can get the money to attempt a move by selling their family property", realise what you are saying. Sell dilapidated rural property to whom exactly? How does that happen?
Unless you have grants of approx 15-30k to bring people to cities I don't think it is even possible. And what cities would even want this to happen enough to participate? Probably places like Cleveland? Detroit? Out of the frying pan into the fire I suppose.
Repopulating the Rust Belt and/or rebuilding American manufacturing while tackling rural poverty seems pretty win-win to me.
There are likely millions of people who wouldn't turn down housing and a good job even if it meant relocating somewhere else entirely. But many of those people probably don't have the means to do it, especially if the guarantee of betterment isn't at the other end of the uncertainty.
There are likely millions of people who wouldn't turn down housing and a good job even if it meant relocating somewhere else entirely. But many of those people probably don't have the means to do it, especially if the guarantee of betterment isn't at the other end of the uncertainty.
Northwest Arkansas is offering people $10,000 and a free bike to move there.
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2020/11/18/Arkansas-group-offer...
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2020/11/18/Arkansas-group-offer...
I'm going to post this even though there is a large chance that it's going to be poorly received:
This is simply an extension of what happened to urban poor (particularly blacks) in the latter half of the last century, and our failure to solve those issues adequately is simply allowing the dynamic to self-replicate.
It happened with drugs (crack cocaine vs opioids), it happened with housing (contract housing and gentrification vs subprime loans and asset inflation), on and on. See also Native Americans on reservations, essentially abandoned by the state for having the audacity to want some measure of self-determination. Whatever we allow to happen to the least of us, will eventually happen to most of us.
I come from the perspective of a military brat, a descendent of slaves, born overseas. My ancestral home is either unknown or a town built on the site of a plantation, depending on your perspective; my childhood home is an abstract idea shattered across 5 states and a dozen physical buildings; I have no memory of my place of birth and would have to get a visa to see it. I have a strong predilection towards dismissing sentiments concerning "home" because the society I live in has ruthlessly ground out any sentimentality I might have had towards it.
However, I also know what the break-up of community has done to black people in the US, the ignoble gift of desperation that the dissolution and rot of family and economic opportunity leaves to people. That's now playing out for American whites, and as we've seen, it carries with it a very serious and threatening sense of aggrievement, rooted in the kind of entitlement minorities could never claim without putting their lives on the line against their fellow countrymen. Therefore, even in my own grievance, I see the necessity of compassion and action.
I don't think a modern Homestead Act is necessarily the answer, though, because it doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is our willingness as a country to let despair fester in one pocket or another, as long as it's not too close to home. I don't know what fixing that is going to take. Giving people money to move might be a part of it, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all. There needs to be a more fundamental shift in how we view the right of people to secure shelter and build community, and perhaps of our responsibility to sacrifice and provide for this when it comes to people who aren't our own, may not live or look like us, may vote differently or work different jobs or have different dreams. We're all tied together.
This is simply an extension of what happened to urban poor (particularly blacks) in the latter half of the last century, and our failure to solve those issues adequately is simply allowing the dynamic to self-replicate.
It happened with drugs (crack cocaine vs opioids), it happened with housing (contract housing and gentrification vs subprime loans and asset inflation), on and on. See also Native Americans on reservations, essentially abandoned by the state for having the audacity to want some measure of self-determination. Whatever we allow to happen to the least of us, will eventually happen to most of us.
I come from the perspective of a military brat, a descendent of slaves, born overseas. My ancestral home is either unknown or a town built on the site of a plantation, depending on your perspective; my childhood home is an abstract idea shattered across 5 states and a dozen physical buildings; I have no memory of my place of birth and would have to get a visa to see it. I have a strong predilection towards dismissing sentiments concerning "home" because the society I live in has ruthlessly ground out any sentimentality I might have had towards it.
However, I also know what the break-up of community has done to black people in the US, the ignoble gift of desperation that the dissolution and rot of family and economic opportunity leaves to people. That's now playing out for American whites, and as we've seen, it carries with it a very serious and threatening sense of aggrievement, rooted in the kind of entitlement minorities could never claim without putting their lives on the line against their fellow countrymen. Therefore, even in my own grievance, I see the necessity of compassion and action.
I don't think a modern Homestead Act is necessarily the answer, though, because it doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is our willingness as a country to let despair fester in one pocket or another, as long as it's not too close to home. I don't know what fixing that is going to take. Giving people money to move might be a part of it, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all. There needs to be a more fundamental shift in how we view the right of people to secure shelter and build community, and perhaps of our responsibility to sacrifice and provide for this when it comes to people who aren't our own, may not live or look like us, may vote differently or work different jobs or have different dreams. We're all tied together.
[deleted]
> Both parties don't want this because this means a massive transformation in the politics of the urban/rural divide.
I think it's rather simpler than that. People won't elect someone who tells them their coal town is doomed when the coal runs out. They'll vote for the guy who makes unrealistic promises instead.
See endless stream of politicians promising to save dying mining towns, dying factory towns, etc.
I think it's rather simpler than that. People won't elect someone who tells them their coal town is doomed when the coal runs out. They'll vote for the guy who makes unrealistic promises instead.
See endless stream of politicians promising to save dying mining towns, dying factory towns, etc.
With the rise of fracking the oil extraction industry has returned in some of those places. But that's probably only temporary.
Californians don't want these people to move. They shout gentrification and would prefer that these people stay out.
This seems like great news. In the face of our collective inability to do anything about climate change, if we could cut our current population by 2100 it might help with the crop failures and such.
while the developed world shrinks, the developing world and esp. africa are exploding. These events do not balance each other as dev. world is much less productive and going to face extreme economic problems.
> But what does population decline look like on the ground? The experience of Japan, a country that has been showing this trend for more than a decade, might offer some insight. Already there are too few people to fill all its houses – one in every eight homes now lies empty. In Japan, they call such vacant buildings akiya – ghost homes.
> Most often to be found in rural areas, these houses quickly fall into disrepair, leaving them as eerie presences in the landscape, thus speeding the decline of the neighbourhood. Many akiya have been left empty after the death of their occupants; inherited by their city-living relatives, many go unclaimed and untended. With so many structures under unknown ownership, local authorities are also unable to tear them down.
It doesn't help that the Japanese have a strong bias against old/used homes, so land with a home on it is worth less than a vacant lot (because you have to factor in the cost of demolishing the existing home). I'm speculating, but that would probably also lead to houses that aren't built to last, and thus fall into disrepair more quickly.
> Most often to be found in rural areas, these houses quickly fall into disrepair, leaving them as eerie presences in the landscape, thus speeding the decline of the neighbourhood. Many akiya have been left empty after the death of their occupants; inherited by their city-living relatives, many go unclaimed and untended. With so many structures under unknown ownership, local authorities are also unable to tear them down.
It doesn't help that the Japanese have a strong bias against old/used homes, so land with a home on it is worth less than a vacant lot (because you have to factor in the cost of demolishing the existing home). I'm speculating, but that would probably also lead to houses that aren't built to last, and thus fall into disrepair more quickly.
The issue is that male fertility and testosterone keeps falling consecutively every year in developed countries. We don’t know why. If I were to guesss, it’s due to the use of plastics with our food. Even without extremes of temperature, research has found that plastic will leech synthetic hormones like BPA (synthetic estrogen) and BPS. This is making its way into almost all of our food and drink
On the bright side, the threat of overpopulation is lessened
On the bright side, the threat of overpopulation is lessened
The vast majority of fertile-age, opposite-sex couples can conceive fairly quickly if they try, and people in the upper half of the global income distribution now have access to medical care if they run into any issues. Infant mortality is also way down compared to past centuries.
https://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/trying-to-conceive/...
https://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/trying-to-conceive/...
It's not just about the ability to conceive though. Testosterone is a hormone that has very wide ranging effects.[0] The regulation of sex-drive alone could have an impact on the fertility rate.
[0] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/underst...
[0] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/underst...
I think even with reduced sex drive, the chances are that you would still be able to have sex successfully at least 3 times in your fertile life.
The "issue" – and lets face it, a gradual, managed decline in population is just what the Earth ordered – is that we have collectively decided we would like fewer kids and are deploying birth control.
The "issue" – and lets face it, a gradual, managed decline in population is just what the Earth ordered – is that we have collectively decided we would like fewer kids and are deploying birth control.
I think this overthinks the situation. Kids are an expensive luxury in first world countries, which many can’t afford and a proportion who can don’t want them.
At the same time, in environments with easy access to contraceptives and where women are educated and empowered, the fertility rate falls without fail (per Our World In Data).
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
At the same time, in environments with easy access to contraceptives and where women are educated and empowered, the fertility rate falls without fail (per Our World In Data).
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
The data in this Parents article is really out of date
I can’t find the white papers I want to cite but here’s a better article, even though it’s also older
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/19/us-fertilit...
Even accounting for social (contraception and abortion) and economic changes, fertility has gone down in developed countries
I can’t find the white papers I want to cite but here’s a better article, even though it’s also older
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/19/us-fertilit...
Even accounting for social (contraception and abortion) and economic changes, fertility has gone down in developed countries
>We don’t know why. If I were to guesss, due to the use of plastics with our food.
What evidence do you have to dismiss the (IMO much, much more plausible) idea that it's just men becoming more sedentary, moving and exercising less?
Also... I agree w/ one of the other commenters that declining testosterone does not appear to be an obstacle to couples intentionally trying to conceive, so I would be very hesitant to (essentially) blame plastic in food for declining population.
What evidence do you have to dismiss the (IMO much, much more plausible) idea that it's just men becoming more sedentary, moving and exercising less?
Also... I agree w/ one of the other commenters that declining testosterone does not appear to be an obstacle to couples intentionally trying to conceive, so I would be very hesitant to (essentially) blame plastic in food for declining population.
My understanding is that we’d expect to see it leveling off if that’s the case, but every year it just keeps dropping.
Because there are residual differences in testosterone for the intergenerational comparisons after controlling for physical activity.
> after controlling for physical activity
You say that like it's easy to do. It's not. That's not directly measurable, certainly not across generations. It's only barely become measurable in the past five or six years.
How would you go about getting this information in the 1970's? Self-reported data would be the best you can do. Getting actual measurements of that information is something which (I suspect) is not available at a large scale beyond a few years of data. Whether it is (even now) linked to measurements of testosterone at a large scale is doubtful.
I doubt that there is high-quality data on actual physical activity at a large scale at all, let alone linked to measurements of hormone levels from any of the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's, ... etc. It will only get much much harder going back.
So "controlling for" physical activity is a non-trivial task in the very best case.
You say that like it's easy to do. It's not. That's not directly measurable, certainly not across generations. It's only barely become measurable in the past five or six years.
How would you go about getting this information in the 1970's? Self-reported data would be the best you can do. Getting actual measurements of that information is something which (I suspect) is not available at a large scale beyond a few years of data. Whether it is (even now) linked to measurements of testosterone at a large scale is doubtful.
I doubt that there is high-quality data on actual physical activity at a large scale at all, let alone linked to measurements of hormone levels from any of the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's, ... etc. It will only get much much harder going back.
So "controlling for" physical activity is a non-trivial task in the very best case.
This is a popular theory but, plastics and other hormone disrupters are everywhere, including places with high birth rates and strong machismo cultures. The controlling variable is women’s rights and their ability to control their bodies. The sooner we can internalize that fewer women are choosing to have children, and when they do they choose to have fewer, the sooner we can start to make social and policy changes to address it.
So you discount the idea that when people have the choice not to have large numbers of children (good healthcare to provide for old age, easily accessible contraception) they prefer to have fewer children?
Also, the central premise of the article seems to be in dispute:
Professor David Coleman from the University of Oxford said: 'Much has been written about the 'Death of the West', with its threatened demise reportedly due to the low level of reproduction in Western countries. We show that this so-called decline has been exaggerated and trends in European fertility have been misunderstood.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427211644.h...
Also, the central premise of the article seems to be in dispute:
Professor David Coleman from the University of Oxford said: 'Much has been written about the 'Death of the West', with its threatened demise reportedly due to the low level of reproduction in Western countries. We show that this so-called decline has been exaggerated and trends in European fertility have been misunderstood.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427211644.h...
I can’t find the white paper, but the decline in fertility rate takes into account social changes such as contraception. In fact, if I remember it correctly, social changes masked the decline
> On the bright side, the threat of overpopulation is lessened
That's a significant bright side. Personally, as someone who enjoys spending time in nature, I would much rather deal with the problems of underpopulation than overpopulation.
That's a significant bright side. Personally, as someone who enjoys spending time in nature, I would much rather deal with the problems of underpopulation than overpopulation.
seriously - what is the problem with 'underpopulation'?
just the fact the the financial system is structured around infinite growth?
just the fact the the financial system is structured around infinite growth?
It's just not the financial system, though, it's our entire societies that are designed with growth in mind. It's obvious we need some kind of alternative way to solve this, but getting from here to there isn't something one just does.
Yep, that's pretty much it. But don't underestimate the difficulty of solving this problem. The entire structure of human society currently rests on this assumption. Discharging it is not easy.
I think issues are a lot less complex than you think.
From anecdata, it simply looks like the burden of government, extended family, and increasing QOL costs, is much greater than ever on childbearing age men & women, for those living in developed countries. For example, men and women only started to take 10-30 year debt to buy a house, or to become a nurse...in the last 50 or so years.
Thus, there are far fewer resources (including testosterone!) for child-rearing.
Take for example what psychologists say about males being less fertile when they make less money than their partners, for example.
Not having an opinion on whether this is good or bad. It just seems to be true.
From anecdata, it simply looks like the burden of government, extended family, and increasing QOL costs, is much greater than ever on childbearing age men & women, for those living in developed countries. For example, men and women only started to take 10-30 year debt to buy a house, or to become a nurse...in the last 50 or so years.
Thus, there are far fewer resources (including testosterone!) for child-rearing.
Take for example what psychologists say about males being less fertile when they make less money than their partners, for example.
Not having an opinion on whether this is good or bad. It just seems to be true.
The lowered fertility rate accounts for economic and social factors. This is biological and it started in the 1950s. It was masked by social changes starting in the 1960s
This is false. Birth rates are down because people are choosing to have fewer children, not because something is preventing them from having children they want.
Obesity and sedentary lifestyles are probably bigger factors in declining testosterone levels.
>testosterone keeps falling consecutively every year in developed countries. We don’t know why.
the more developed the society is the less valuable are the testosterone benefits like the ability for heavy physical work in harsh conditions, etc. and the less tolerance the society has for the testosterone driven behavior - thus natural selection drives testosterone down. For example when you have a car accident, display of rage would put you in a losing position in US where you just need to exchange insurance info, and your higher muscle mass and hand-to-hand combat skills decide nothing, whereis for example in Russia the rage is a synergetic addition to the metal tire tool in you hand displayed as a credible threat. Another correlation which would suggest why testosterone would be selected out from government and management positions in developed societies:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/kykl.12169
" To measure testosterone exposure, we apply the facial width‐to‐height metric (fWHR) – a standard proxy widely used in the psychological literature – and look at a sample of Russian regional governors. We find a positive relationship between the fWHR of the governor and the level of repression in his region. "
the more developed the society is the less valuable are the testosterone benefits like the ability for heavy physical work in harsh conditions, etc. and the less tolerance the society has for the testosterone driven behavior - thus natural selection drives testosterone down. For example when you have a car accident, display of rage would put you in a losing position in US where you just need to exchange insurance info, and your higher muscle mass and hand-to-hand combat skills decide nothing, whereis for example in Russia the rage is a synergetic addition to the metal tire tool in you hand displayed as a credible threat. Another correlation which would suggest why testosterone would be selected out from government and management positions in developed societies:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/kykl.12169
" To measure testosterone exposure, we apply the facial width‐to‐height metric (fWHR) – a standard proxy widely used in the psychological literature – and look at a sample of Russian regional governors. We find a positive relationship between the fWHR of the governor and the level of repression in his region. "
Please stop repeating the "testosterone==aggressiveness" falsehood. There isn't a 1:1 correlation. Humans are way more complex than that.
> thus natural selection drives testosterone down
Also you are implying that natural selection is currently existing in human society. It does not.
...and that such selection works so fast that it changes human genome within a generation of two. This is simply impossible.
> thus natural selection drives testosterone down
Also you are implying that natural selection is currently existing in human society. It does not.
...and that such selection works so fast that it changes human genome within a generation of two. This is simply impossible.
>Please stop repeating the "testosterone==aggressiveness" falsehood. There isn't a 1:1 correlation.
i didn't say "==". I stated "->", i.e. positive causality from testosterone to aggressiveness (The opposite is obviously not true as evidenced by aggressiveness without testosterone, say in women).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/#:~:tex....
"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life, determined by testosterone, remain attenuated in man and suppressed through familial and social inhibitions. However, it still manifests itself in various intensities and forms from; thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance behavior, to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that enables their realization. There is evidence that testosterone levels are higher in individuals with aggressive behavior, such as prisoners who have committed violent crimes."
>Also you are implying that natural selection is currently existing in human society. It does not.
natural selection never stops. Some people naively think that the "fittest" necessarily means strongest/healthiest/etc. which is just not the case.
So, then it comes to the drivers, one can say that societal natural selection is less "natural" (in that very naive understanding of it) and more like selective dog breeding and similarly it works very fast. Add to that the positive feedback between testosterone production and testosterone style behavior - ie. the more testosteronish style behavior of an individual causes more testosterone production in his body and vise versa (that famous barn swallow experiment where they painted the male bird chests dark to fake high testosterone characteristic or the article referred above:
"Several field studies have also shown that testosterone levels increase during the aggressive phases of sports games. In more sensitive laboratory paradigms, it has been observed that participant’s testosterone rises in the winners of; competitions, dominance trials or in confrontations with factitious opponents.").
i didn't say "==". I stated "->", i.e. positive causality from testosterone to aggressiveness (The opposite is obviously not true as evidenced by aggressiveness without testosterone, say in women).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/#:~:tex....
"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life, determined by testosterone, remain attenuated in man and suppressed through familial and social inhibitions. However, it still manifests itself in various intensities and forms from; thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance behavior, to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that enables their realization. There is evidence that testosterone levels are higher in individuals with aggressive behavior, such as prisoners who have committed violent crimes."
>Also you are implying that natural selection is currently existing in human society. It does not.
natural selection never stops. Some people naively think that the "fittest" necessarily means strongest/healthiest/etc. which is just not the case.
So, then it comes to the drivers, one can say that societal natural selection is less "natural" (in that very naive understanding of it) and more like selective dog breeding and similarly it works very fast. Add to that the positive feedback between testosterone production and testosterone style behavior - ie. the more testosteronish style behavior of an individual causes more testosterone production in his body and vise versa (that famous barn swallow experiment where they painted the male bird chests dark to fake high testosterone characteristic or the article referred above:
"Several field studies have also shown that testosterone levels increase during the aggressive phases of sports games. In more sensitive laboratory paradigms, it has been observed that participant’s testosterone rises in the winners of; competitions, dominance trials or in confrontations with factitious opponents.").
I think a lot of people expect the rise in working from home to fix this problem but it’s more than that. Rural areas need access to affordable broadband internet, and more industries need to embrace remote work. I think an overall decline in population is good but the remaining population needs to be properly dispersed to see any real benefit from it. And that’s going to require intentional support and intervention from government.
That would only move the problem of “there are too many houses” to cities or suburbs, not solve it.
Also, I don’t think empty houses are the main problem. An older population costs more and pays less taxes.
So, if one keeps current infrastructure spending, budget deficits will increase, and government debt will go up.
And if the population shrinks, government debt per capita will go up even more.
If their population really halves, I think many countries will have to make hard choices as to which villages or even cities, and roads leading into them, to abandon.
I can’t find it now, but I remember some people arguing Japan should do that with Fukushima after the tsunami.
Also, I don’t think empty houses are the main problem. An older population costs more and pays less taxes.
So, if one keeps current infrastructure spending, budget deficits will increase, and government debt will go up.
And if the population shrinks, government debt per capita will go up even more.
If their population really halves, I think many countries will have to make hard choices as to which villages or even cities, and roads leading into them, to abandon.
I can’t find it now, but I remember some people arguing Japan should do that with Fukushima after the tsunami.
Not at all. Cities are crowded af. With more of the population dispersed, we can redesign urban life with more living space, create more parks, support more robust urban farming, etc. Cities wouldn’t look the same as they do today, but I think that’s a good thing.
People choosing not to replace themselves is a strong indicator that we are failing to thrive.
[deleted]
Lets worry about Corona and protect the >70year old childless boomers.
https://twitter.com/bleppyman/status/1351286077823324160
https://twitter.com/bleppyman/status/1351286077823324160
As The Guardian always have an addiction for pushing a narrative. In the real world, population is still growing by 80 million per year and the plateau is calculated at 20 billion.
The fact is that the poorer a country is, the more likely is for families to have more kids to raise their chances in life. Population in western world is certainly declining and relying on immigration to keep numbers sustainable.
The fact is that the poorer a country is, the more likely is for families to have more kids to raise their chances in life. Population in western world is certainly declining and relying on immigration to keep numbers sustainable.
> and the plateau is calculated at 20 billion.
According to who? Hans Rosling famously[1] didn't think so.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
According to who? Hans Rosling famously[1] didn't think so.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
Neither does the UN:
> The UN projects that the global population increases from a population of 7.7 billion in 2019 to 11.2 billion by the end of the century. By that time, the UN projects, fast global population growth will come to an end.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
> The UN projects that the global population increases from a population of 7.7 billion in 2019 to 11.2 billion by the end of the century. By that time, the UN projects, fast global population growth will come to an end.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
These cash awards for having children being paid by developed countries are laughably far too little, too late in their intention. Looking at the issue in financial terms, having a child and bringing them up well is an enormous cost both in money and time. The most significant being the opportunity cost of at least one parent's ability to participate economically being severely reduced for years. Brian Tomasik estimated that having a child may cost over $300k when measured in those terms, although there is some USA slant in his analysis (https://reducing-suffering.org/the-cost-of-kids/).
Now, Tomasik does mention that having children cannot be judged economically, it's a special and important experience that you can't place a price on. On the other hand, there's no denying that raising a child in today's world is simply unthinkable for many young adults who are struggling with insecurity in housing, careers, and a bleaker outlook on the future. Many commodities are historically cheap today but property is extremely less affordable, and most prospective parents would rather delay having children until they can achieve career stability and afford a reasonably-sized house, which is happening very late in life (if at all) compared to previous generations.
If governments were really serious about reversing the decline in birth rates, they should be looking at pursuing better policies for ensuring more people can afford a home, or providing free childcare at scale - tackling the underlying societal reasons why this trend is occurring rather than adding a hopelessly insufficient cash bandaid. Furthermore, a cash bonus creates a perverse incentive where some people may grab the short term reward without necessarily considering the long term sacrifice involved in having kids.