Baby shortfall is so bad that the labor shortage will last for years(fortune.com)
fortune.com
Baby shortfall is so bad that the labor shortage will last for years
https://fortune.com/2022/11/17/declining-birth-rate-labor-shortage-workforce-population-glassdoor-indeed-report/
70 comments
I'm retired and I'd be looking for options like Canada's voluntary euthanasia program if I didn't have my adult children. It's surprising to me how meaningless money has become now that I am old and lacking the energy to enjoy it. I'm grateful I still have something to live for.
Kids have no obligation to provide elder care though, and estrangement rates are material.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-...
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-...
Right. There are no guarantees when calculating the cost benefits of having kids. The biggest risk in having kids is not financial in my opinion. The biggest risk is that they will bring you an enormous amount of suffering, say by becoming drug addicts and committing suicide. I took the risk and it paid off for me. All I'm offering here is a counter argument.
As a parent, I agree. I will also say it’s the hardest job I’ve ever had, and I would not recommend it to others if a future caregiver is what they’re hoping to get out of it.
Apparently some US states do have filial laws - https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-you-legally-responsible-fo... ... In India, kids do have a legal obligation to care for parents - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_and_Welfare_of_P... ...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Right, the in-hindsight value may make it worth it, but when you're 25 or 30 or 35 and start to run the numbers on the terrible shadow having a kid will cast on your future savings and then realize opportunity cost makes it even worse... it can be hard to see that less-quantifiable perspective clearly.
(for the record, I have some kids, but damn can I ever understand why people choose not to, even when they do want them)
(for the record, I have some kids, but damn can I ever understand why people choose not to, even when they do want them)
> start to run the numbers
The problem is at a young age you don't know the important things to include in your formulas or how to value them. What's it going to cost to pay someone to make decisions for you when you start having trouble making them for yourself? It's going to cost a lot to set that up with someone trustworthy ahead of time. If you've done a halfway decent job of raising your kids they will do that for free and you don't even have to set it up. They will be watching you and making sure you are ok. They will do it because they love you, not because you are paying them.
The problem is at a young age you don't know the important things to include in your formulas or how to value them. What's it going to cost to pay someone to make decisions for you when you start having trouble making them for yourself? It's going to cost a lot to set that up with someone trustworthy ahead of time. If you've done a halfway decent job of raising your kids they will do that for free and you don't even have to set it up. They will be watching you and making sure you are ok. They will do it because they love you, not because you are paying them.
Reading this and your earlier comments, it appears you had kids in order to have someone take care of you in your old age?! You seem to have great expectations for your kids. Hopefully they are OK with that.
Maybe in the USA in 2022 this is weird, but in many cultures, taking care of your parents after they took care of you is just normal, commonplace, expected, assumed. Like, the natural circle of life.
If they’re not okay with than you failed as a parent or your broader culture has failed. Taking care of the elderly is part of your role as a human.
That's a silly accusation because like almost all young people I didn't think about my old age at all. Why think about something so unpleasant when it's long, long way off. I'm speaking of Americans as an American. I understand in other cultures it's something they think about, but America is a youth culture that doesn't teach long term thinking.
If my kids don't want to help me that's their right and I'd make other plans while asking God why I did to deserve such ungrateful kids.
If my kids don't want to help me that's their right and I'd make other plans while asking God why I did to deserve such ungrateful kids.
In some sense, either your kids take care of you OR other people's kids take care of you when you are too old to physically support yourself.
Outside of euthanasia when you become physically infirm, there is no other way to live through old age.
Outside of euthanasia when you become physically infirm, there is no other way to live through old age.
Absolutely—again, I have kids, so I decided it was worth it. The benefits can be incalculably great, but the costs are a lot easier to see and are very discouraging, and that situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be, for people in the same ballpark as median household income (we don't make FAANG money but are doing quite a bit better than US median, or... well, I really dunno if we'd have kids, otherwise).
Or maybe you would have something else giving meaning to your life if you had invested the same amount of time you spent on your kids on a hobby or personal projects instead.
This sounds like one of those fatfire tropes that’s not true. See, e.g., all the old people I know who have kids.
People who are old now had a very different environment when they were younger, than people of child-bearing age now. My early-boomer dad only had a high school diploma and grew up rural and dirt-poor. He retired early, very well, despite our family having only his income, supporting me, my mother, and making mis-steps like puttering around with low-return small businesses for his entire 20s such that he didn't start saving until his 30s, and a divorce that (rightly) siphoned off plenty of child support for several other kids. He was a blue-collar worker who eventually got into middle management for a while. One employer for life, after his puttering-around owning low-income sole-proprietorships phase.
The key was much, much lower costs for things like housing and healthcare, and a really solid union retirement package better than what even most union jobs offer these days.
Notably, money tied up in mandatory retirement schemes isn't available for use in zero-sum competition for things like housing. You might spend responsibly, but when others "defect" and sacrifice what should be retirement savings for advantage today, suddenly the housing you can afford is a bit worse than it was before (worse school district, in particular), and you're even more tempted to do the same. Repeat across an entire society and pretty soon savings rates are catastrophically low—check some savings-at-same-age charts for various generations to see this in action, the differences are huge (though that's not the only factor causing it).
The key was much, much lower costs for things like housing and healthcare, and a really solid union retirement package better than what even most union jobs offer these days.
Notably, money tied up in mandatory retirement schemes isn't available for use in zero-sum competition for things like housing. You might spend responsibly, but when others "defect" and sacrifice what should be retirement savings for advantage today, suddenly the housing you can afford is a bit worse than it was before (worse school district, in particular), and you're even more tempted to do the same. Repeat across an entire society and pretty soon savings rates are catastrophically low—check some savings-at-same-age charts for various generations to see this in action, the differences are huge (though that's not the only factor causing it).
Like you said the problem is the things you need in order to survive and work, healthcare and housing have become absurdly expensive.
> Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're not rich.
Not having kids will create other problems for retirees. Retirement is fundamentally the working supporting the retired. In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree in the US. Today there are three and by 2030 there will be two. Three to two may not sound like a lot but that's a 50% increase.
Retirement is going to be way, way more expensive in the future.
> so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution
Total fertility(# of kids per woman) is falling basically everywhere and nobody has found a way to increase it once it starts falling.
That doesn't mean a better social safety net is a bad idea but I don't think increasing fertility is great argument for it.
Not having kids will create other problems for retirees. Retirement is fundamentally the working supporting the retired. In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree in the US. Today there are three and by 2030 there will be two. Three to two may not sound like a lot but that's a 50% increase.
Retirement is going to be way, way more expensive in the future.
> so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution
Total fertility(# of kids per woman) is falling basically everywhere and nobody has found a way to increase it once it starts falling.
That doesn't mean a better social safety net is a bad idea but I don't think increasing fertility is great argument for it.
I agree that increasing number of kids isn't the bullet proof argument for better safety nets especially because there are many factors. There are parts of this where it is true for my wife and I. Maybe if child care for a single kid wasn't consistently eating up large chunks of my paycheck for the past 4 years, I would have been less inclined to get a vasectomy after our 2nd. There is also the cultural aspect of, my Wife wants to be both a mother and have career. It is possible, but some fields or companies seem to disincentivize this. And there are many reasons for her to have both. First, she won't be a raising kids forever. Second, if our marriage falls apart or something happens to me, we both believe she should be able to be financially independent.
Don't understand why are you worried about # of kids per woman. Africa currently has a rate of over 4 kids per woman and I doubt the ~1% yearly decline in that rate is of any significance.
> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution
It doesn’t seem to be a solution at all since European countries consistently have lower birth rates than the US.
> but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them
I think for the most part that’s just a rationalization. Dual income no kids is just easier and fun.
It doesn’t seem to be a solution at all since European countries consistently have lower birth rates than the US.
> but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them
I think for the most part that’s just a rationalization. Dual income no kids is just easier and fun.
> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution
I don’t understand this… you’ve immediately invalidated your own hypothesis and yet here we are…
Shifting social norms, the liberalization of society, the polar shift towards the self, has caused folks to pursue more personal, pleasurable ends than the good-pain that is raising a family.
You might shift the needle a fraction of a point with social spending here or there, but it is bailing the titanic with a bucket.
If anything, the economic policy might well be downstream of the social. Why the hell should “I” pay for “you” when it doesn’t benefit me. Or vice-versa…
I don’t understand this… you’ve immediately invalidated your own hypothesis and yet here we are…
Shifting social norms, the liberalization of society, the polar shift towards the self, has caused folks to pursue more personal, pleasurable ends than the good-pain that is raising a family.
You might shift the needle a fraction of a point with social spending here or there, but it is bailing the titanic with a bucket.
If anything, the economic policy might well be downstream of the social. Why the hell should “I” pay for “you” when it doesn’t benefit me. Or vice-versa…
I hate the argument we can make up for labor shortfalls with immigrants. Chuck Schumer says “we have a population that’s not reproducing on its own.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/communi...
He says we can fix that with immigrants. But if there is something causing people to not want to “reproduce,” it seems like that needs to be fixed. Otherwise, you’re just shifting the burden of dealing with whatever that is onto immigrants trying to raise their families here. Like, I’m glad I’m raising my kids here instead of in Bangladesh. But it’s a lonely and isolating here in comparison to the way it is back home.
He says we can fix that with immigrants. But if there is something causing people to not want to “reproduce,” it seems like that needs to be fixed. Otherwise, you’re just shifting the burden of dealing with whatever that is onto immigrants trying to raise their families here. Like, I’m glad I’m raising my kids here instead of in Bangladesh. But it’s a lonely and isolating here in comparison to the way it is back home.
Meanwhile, there's lots of unemployed people in small towns, homeless are filling our cities, and most jobs that can be had pay little. Adding a never ending stream of immigrants to that mix feels like pouring gas on a fire.
And we're currently deliberately trying to curb upward pressure on wages and increase the unemployment rate. While others cry about a labor shortage but apparently conveniently forget how market signals work when it's costing them money. Go figure.
I, for one, would love to see more nurses, doctors, elder care workers. We should want more of these workers, not less. One could argue that AMA needs to be forced to increase the number of workers in these fields and reduce occupational liability for healthcare workers. But even that will fall short of what is required in greying America today. If you want real world evidence of this, look at Canada which is frantically trying to get immigrants because their elderly population has no one to take care of them.
Making people reproduce will take a wholesale change in the American way of life. This would include wholesale changes in food, healthcare, health insurance, housing, inequality and a general well-being of humanity. One party in our country is actively attempting to reduce liberties (this party is red in color if this is not obvious), which makes living in this country a precarious position.
As an older child-free millennial, I am living the scenario described in the article. I can assure you that my life path hasn't been easy for the first 35 years. I have zero interest in making my life even more difficult for the remaining 35, for the sake of society.
Make healthcare easy, then we'll talk. Until then, I thank immigrants in America.
Making people reproduce will take a wholesale change in the American way of life. This would include wholesale changes in food, healthcare, health insurance, housing, inequality and a general well-being of humanity. One party in our country is actively attempting to reduce liberties (this party is red in color if this is not obvious), which makes living in this country a precarious position.
As an older child-free millennial, I am living the scenario described in the article. I can assure you that my life path hasn't been easy for the first 35 years. I have zero interest in making my life even more difficult for the remaining 35, for the sake of society.
Make healthcare easy, then we'll talk. Until then, I thank immigrants in America.
But the immigrants have to come here and deal with all those problems. (On top of dealing with the fear our children will also end up “child-free.”) The fact that they will put up with doesn’t seem like a great reason not to fix the problem.
> The fact that they will put up with doesn’t seem like a great reason not to fix the problem.
Like I said, the happy-path lifestyle structure in America is not suited to reproduction. Sure we must try to fix the problem but we all know it's not going to happen soon. I am likely to die before significant changes happen.
Until then, I still want skilled labor in the right places. I will continue to welcome immigrants who fill that gap.
Like I said, the happy-path lifestyle structure in America is not suited to reproduction. Sure we must try to fix the problem but we all know it's not going to happen soon. I am likely to die before significant changes happen.
Until then, I still want skilled labor in the right places. I will continue to welcome immigrants who fill that gap.
[deleted]
Well the incentives have also shifted.
Long ago your kids were like a retirement policy.
Now society says that's bad. You can't and shouldn't have kids to provide for your own future. No the kids are there, in the ultimate hypocrisy, to provide for everyone elses future via compulsory taxes funding social programs. So everyone else benefits from your raising them, while you disproportionately shoulder the costs, creating a massive "free rider" problem.
Long ago your kids were like a retirement policy.
Now society says that's bad. You can't and shouldn't have kids to provide for your own future. No the kids are there, in the ultimate hypocrisy, to provide for everyone elses future via compulsory taxes funding social programs. So everyone else benefits from your raising them, while you disproportionately shoulder the costs, creating a massive "free rider" problem.
> No the kids are there, in the ultimate hypocrisy, to provide for everyone elses future
I don't know why this is being downvoted. If you listen to any republican biased radio/TV, you'd hear people blaming young people all the time. It's like they hate me for not having children BECAUSE it reduces the size of the labor force.
Sorry republicans. I ain't bringing any kids to this world to serve YOU.
I don't know why this is being downvoted. If you listen to any republican biased radio/TV, you'd hear people blaming young people all the time. It's like they hate me for not having children BECAUSE it reduces the size of the labor force.
Sorry republicans. I ain't bringing any kids to this world to serve YOU.
The working age labor force serves everyone, not just “republicans.” You also need working age people to pay taxes and provide the government services democrats want. If native born democrats won’t have them, then when they consume services in retirement, they’ll be free riding on republicans and immigrants.
I agree that working age labor force serves everyone. But it is only "Republicans" who want to impose rules on people so that they have birth. If you truly believe in liberty, you also agree to let people live their lives.
> If native born democrats won’t have them, then when they consume services in retirement, they’ll be free riding on republicans and immigrants.
No one is preventing Republicans from having as many babies as they want. Go ahead. Make 100s of them and train them to be skilled. If they can't, I am happy with immigrants filling the gap. The real question is, why do Republicans feel the need to ask "others" to do what they want instead of doing it themselves?
> If native born democrats won’t have them, then when they consume services in retirement, they’ll be free riding on republicans and immigrants.
No one is preventing Republicans from having as many babies as they want. Go ahead. Make 100s of them and train them to be skilled. If they can't, I am happy with immigrants filling the gap. The real question is, why do Republicans feel the need to ask "others" to do what they want instead of doing it themselves?
> But it is only "Republicans" who want to impose rules on people so that they have birth.
Let me introduce you to people I like to call Muslims. I was just at a wedding for the daughter of a family friend we haven’t seen in years. She comes over to our table to say hi, and my mom is like “so when are you giving us the next big news?” And she’s like “auntie, after the honeymoon” because it wasn’t a joke.
> If you truly believe in liberty, you also agree to let people live their lives.
Republicans believe in liberty from the government, not liberty from social and moral norms.
> The real question is, why do Republicans feel the need to ask "others" to do what they want instead of doing it themselves?
Because kids are a positive externality that society needs and everyone benefits from. Nobody likes it when they do the work and other people won’t carry their weight.
Let me introduce you to people I like to call Muslims. I was just at a wedding for the daughter of a family friend we haven’t seen in years. She comes over to our table to say hi, and my mom is like “so when are you giving us the next big news?” And she’s like “auntie, after the honeymoon” because it wasn’t a joke.
> If you truly believe in liberty, you also agree to let people live their lives.
Republicans believe in liberty from the government, not liberty from social and moral norms.
> The real question is, why do Republicans feel the need to ask "others" to do what they want instead of doing it themselves?
Because kids are a positive externality that society needs and everyone benefits from. Nobody likes it when they do the work and other people won’t carry their weight.
> Let me introduce you to people I like to call Muslims.
I don't believe Muslims is a political party. But yes, I agree that Republicans in America are closer to Muslim theological societies than western liberal societies.
> Republicans believe in liberty from the government, not liberty from social and moral norms.
And liberty from government is exactly what I seek. I don't want government telling me to produce children.
> Because kids are a positive externality that society needs and everyone benefits from. Nobody likes it when they do the work and other people won’t carry their weight.
Right. And I have been shortchanged enough in life where I also don't like that I did so much work but others didn't carry their weight. My life also matters. I am battered and I cannot afford (mentally, physically and financially) to raise children in the precarious American society. We are in agreement then that other people need to carry their weight before I start having children.
I don't believe Muslims is a political party. But yes, I agree that Republicans in America are closer to Muslim theological societies than western liberal societies.
> Republicans believe in liberty from the government, not liberty from social and moral norms.
And liberty from government is exactly what I seek. I don't want government telling me to produce children.
> Because kids are a positive externality that society needs and everyone benefits from. Nobody likes it when they do the work and other people won’t carry their weight.
Right. And I have been shortchanged enough in life where I also don't like that I did so much work but others didn't carry their weight. My life also matters. I am battered and I cannot afford (mentally, physically and financially) to raise children in the precarious American society. We are in agreement then that other people need to carry their weight before I start having children.
[deleted]
It's not just "here" though, birth-rates are dropping worldwide with economic development.
This is often touted as a good thing, but the more I think of it it just seems like it isn’t “having such a good life in a developed economy” that makes people have fewer kids.
It seems more and more clear that increasingly competitive economic conditions are the reason people in the developed world have fewer kids.
It seems more and more clear that increasingly competitive economic conditions are the reason people in the developed world have fewer kids.
The US had sustainable birth rates throughout the 1990s to 2008. Not exactly the Stone Age. But they began a consistent downward trend since then.
The cost and regulation of raising children is much lower overseas. It's rational that the US would be a net consumer of children and some of these other nations are net producers of children. Comparative advantage.
And I do mean consume. These adult immigrants pay taxes into the US without having benefitted from US taxpayer provided K-12 education themselves, and we get to consume their labor without having contributed to their upbringing.
It's honestly shocking people have kids at all in the US. Any random chucklhead can call and make up whatever they like to CPS. If you get divorced, you can actually be thrown in debtors prison if you can't come up with a certain amount even if you never even spent close to that amount on the child when you were married (see American dude who was taken hostage while contracted in Iraq, he was imprisoned upon return because he didn't pay CS while being a hostage to terrorists). If you let the kid walk to the park or home you may end up with criminal charges, nevermind both parents need to be busy at work to provide the standard of care CPS requires to not take away the children. And if you're a woman in some states and you find out the kid has debilitating disease you may be forced to go all the way to term knowing you're going to wreck their life and your own.
And I do mean consume. These adult immigrants pay taxes into the US without having benefitted from US taxpayer provided K-12 education themselves, and we get to consume their labor without having contributed to their upbringing.
It's honestly shocking people have kids at all in the US. Any random chucklhead can call and make up whatever they like to CPS. If you get divorced, you can actually be thrown in debtors prison if you can't come up with a certain amount even if you never even spent close to that amount on the child when you were married (see American dude who was taken hostage while contracted in Iraq, he was imprisoned upon return because he didn't pay CS while being a hostage to terrorists). If you let the kid walk to the park or home you may end up with criminal charges, nevermind both parents need to be busy at work to provide the standard of care CPS requires to not take away the children. And if you're a woman in some states and you find out the kid has debilitating disease you may be forced to go all the way to term knowing you're going to wreck their life and your own.
Stop overthinking it. Settle down and have kids. I know no one else will give you this advice, because it’s generally bad advice, but seriously…just start trying to make the baby and let nature do it’s thing. If you wait for the perfect time, it may never arrive. Or when it does, you’ll regret having waited so long. Nothing in my life has been as worthwhile as raising my children. It’s not always easy, you have to work on resolving conflicts between siblings or you and your kids (teens amirite?) and you’ll have to think of more than just yourself in pretty much any decision you make, and everything has extra steps. It sounds like a pain, but I wish I could do it 4 more times! My mother had me at 16 and thankfully I survived. I’m in a better position but not by any means well off or able to stop working, but I am happy with my lot. I would definitely say make sure you are a functional adult and in a relationship with someone you are going to be forced to deal with for at least 18. Aside from that, let the adventure begin!
Coming from someone who wants kids: IMO this is poor advice. Having kids is a monumental commitment, for mothers especially but fathers too. Your whole life will change and I know of too many people that regret having kids to be able to say this kind of advice is good.
It being "worth it" is not really a given though.
I'm also a parent and although I fully execute my duty to the best of my abilities in the interest of the child I never found it to be particularly advantageous position to be in. You're basically on-call constantly for an often rote and laborious task and there is no guarantee you're going to enjoy it. If you do it well nobody (except if you're very luck the child) gives a fuck and if you fail or have remarkably bad luck you end up in prison. I doubt I'm the only one that just tries to enjoy it to the extent to keep my sanity, for the same reason I would try to keep smiling while in prison.
My personal advice is if someone has an enjoyable life now and don't absolutely have to have children, stop and think hard about the fact you may turn a lifestyle you enjoy into a responsibility you can't back out of.
I'm also a parent and although I fully execute my duty to the best of my abilities in the interest of the child I never found it to be particularly advantageous position to be in. You're basically on-call constantly for an often rote and laborious task and there is no guarantee you're going to enjoy it. If you do it well nobody (except if you're very luck the child) gives a fuck and if you fail or have remarkably bad luck you end up in prison. I doubt I'm the only one that just tries to enjoy it to the extent to keep my sanity, for the same reason I would try to keep smiling while in prison.
My personal advice is if someone has an enjoyable life now and don't absolutely have to have children, stop and think hard about the fact you may turn a lifestyle you enjoy into a responsibility you can't back out of.
So many problems are created because of the huge number of people on earth. A shrinking population is only bad for people with a vested interest in growth; investors and employers, but good for everybody else, including future generations, the climate, and nature.
> A shrinking population is only bad for people with a vested interest in growth; investors and employers, but good for everybody else
a shrinking population is a disaster overall. productivity goes down, more elderly, social services strained, smaller taxable cohorts. the needs will still be there, the money and the people to solve them won’t.
a shrinking population is a disaster overall. productivity goes down, more elderly, social services strained, smaller taxable cohorts. the needs will still be there, the money and the people to solve them won’t.
Yeah exactly. What the original commentor is hoping for is a reset to a previous point in time. Which would be nice in many of ways they've outlined, but isn't possible. Imagine if a large corrupted and bloated city could simply not be large, corrupted, or bloated.
In real life we've seen when such a city loses people or revenue, the trauma of the pullback is devastating and the bloat and corruption do not simply go away. Detroit, 1970s NYC after the suburban flight, and the people clinging to shrinking regions of Japan come to mind.
As our countries have a population pullback wealth will shrink, corners will be cut, innovation will slow, and likely more coal than ever will be burned.
In real life we've seen when such a city loses people or revenue, the trauma of the pullback is devastating and the bloat and corruption do not simply go away. Detroit, 1970s NYC after the suburban flight, and the people clinging to shrinking regions of Japan come to mind.
As our countries have a population pullback wealth will shrink, corners will be cut, innovation will slow, and likely more coal than ever will be burned.
Let it burn. I'm not bringing kids into this mess.
Climate change, war, pollution. An endless list of problems due to humanity's greed. There is no changing the trajectory at this point. Human's are in denial about our future but we've already laid our beds.
Climate change, war, pollution. An endless list of problems due to humanity's greed. There is no changing the trajectory at this point. Human's are in denial about our future but we've already laid our beds.
Source?
I believe the phrase is "made our beds" FYI.
No opinion one way or the other with regards to kids/no kids. Just thought I'd point it out :)
No opinion one way or the other with regards to kids/no kids. Just thought I'd point it out :)
Productivity as we currently measure it, yes.
It seems we're trending (hopefully) to a more sustainable future. Consumerism as we know if today may not exist in the near future. If the only thing we care about is producing Food, Housing and Art/Culture; we will have plenty of people.
It seems we're trending (hopefully) to a more sustainable future. Consumerism as we know if today may not exist in the near future. If the only thing we care about is producing Food, Housing and Art/Culture; we will have plenty of people.
*more unassisted elderly.
Fewer people means less specialization. If you lose a billion people, recognize that you're not losing the billion poorest people, but rather a distribution that skews rich. When populations are declining, a lot of the things we thought were as sure as gravity turn out to be the fun parts of cryptocurrency bubbles: infrastructure maintenance; ever-increasing division of labor, specialization, and the global development initiatives and technologically advanced low-carbon energy research those entail; people determined to protect trees and wildlife; and all pensions, home value trends, and fiat currencies that depend on growth to obscure.
Everyone has a vested interest in growth. Unfortunately, many wealthy people have short-term (single lifetime) interests in the reverse.
Everyone has a vested interest in growth. Unfortunately, many wealthy people have short-term (single lifetime) interests in the reverse.
>investors and employers
When retirement is tied up in stocks for the majority of Americans, everyone is an investor.
When retirement is tied up in stocks for the majority of Americans, everyone is an investor.
"the number of people of working age (15 to 65) is set to decline in the coming years."
1) In richer countries with better working conditions "working age" can be, and for many people has already been, extended into the 70s and 80s. "Working age" and 'retirement' are new concepts, not a fixed part of being human.
2) While so-called 'unemployment' is low, labor force participation rate has continued to drop: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab... Broken out by age: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip...
Both of these things mean that there is still a lot of room to accommodate a decreasing "working age" population.
1) In richer countries with better working conditions "working age" can be, and for many people has already been, extended into the 70s and 80s. "Working age" and 'retirement' are new concepts, not a fixed part of being human.
2) While so-called 'unemployment' is low, labor force participation rate has continued to drop: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab... Broken out by age: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip...
Both of these things mean that there is still a lot of room to accommodate a decreasing "working age" population.
This reminds me of when you get 2 or 3 little mosquito fish in your tank, soon you have 50 in a few weeks and you're wondering what you're going to do. Eventually the brood sizes get smaller and the tank finds its own equilibrium.
So if the labor shortage is going to last for years, does that mean so will inflation?
Automation will make up much of the gap.
Wonderful, workers will have more power
This is good. All the changes after the Black Death lowered Europe's population were the end of the medieval world and the beginning of the Enlightenment.
Lot's of exciting changes in store!
Lot's of exciting changes in store!
The plague killed people of all ages, it didn't just reduce the relative proportion of young people.
I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution, but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them, but it's such a bonkers-bad financial decision that they can't bring themselves to do it. That is, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of desire in the US to have more kids, but you're punished so badly for it that people avoid it anyway. I think fixing our healthcare system and improving our public pension scheme to something better than "if you have to rely on it, you're probably fucked" would help a ton.