Yeah I can see that. Although I think there’s some overlap between the loudest here for increasing the birth rate and what Project 2025 wants.
A lot of stuff has been tried already. Financial incentives just don’t seem to work very well. Free child care, tax breaks, etc. sometimes have a small effect but they don’t seem to have much effect on the long-term trend.
Yes, it would be manageable if it were frozen in place or stabilized at 2.1. But again, there seems to be no reason why it should stop there. Here’s how the trend is going:
That doesn’t look like a trend that’s slowing. Why shouldn’t it cross 2.1 and then keep going?
And while a global rate >2.1 is sustainable, it would still be nice to avoid the having nations just shrink away and disappear. I like Korean culture. I like Japanese culture. Etc. They need a sustainable population if they’re going to continue being culturally relevant nations.
I was referencing the upthread arguments about exactly that - and that those incentives have not come anywhere close to actually offsetting the costs. Thus the second half of the part you quoted. None of the incentives comes close to every a break-even for the total cost in time, lost opportunities or just actual costs of bearing and raising a child. Could an angel-donor or state offer such incentives though? Sure, they could, but no government has done so, and likely never would due to the costs involved, even if it was only for every second or third child.
Maybe rationally it should be, but facts on the ground are otherwise.
Wealthier demographics (Musk being an exceptional demographic occupied only by him) tend to have fewer children and poorer demographics more. And there are good reasons for that.
Missing from the NYT article is any discussion of any evidence that monetary incentives are effective. At least at any level that any government has or is likely to try to implement.
Their highlighted success story “in the developed world is Israel, at 2.9 children per woman, with its hard-to-replicate combination of intense nationalism and widespread religiosity.” Mostly among the ultra Orthodox and then among Arab women. Secular Jewish women, generally better off financially, not so much so, albeit more than other “developed countries”….
I see no evidence that having children is rational reasoned fiscal analysis subject to incentivization.
That’s a fair point but you’d still expect some effect. There are some people right on the edge of a decision, for whom an extra $10k of benefits might well be the deciding factor. The ideal people to target are those on a tipping point.
At least in theory. Maybe the population is highly bimodal. I.e., there are those that assign essentially infinite benefit to having children and will thus have them no matter the cost, and those that see them as an immense burden and aren’t likely to have them even if you pay them the hundreds of thousands it costs to raise them. Maybe there isn’t much of a middle ground of people that are exactly balanced on the cost/benefit analysis. If so, small benefits aren’t going to be much use.
I think you’re right on targeting those that are on the edge of a decision, though I have no idea how I’d detect that honestly. I think you’re also correct that a lot of those who are going to be carefully evaluating the costs are the ones least likely to be reachable unless the incentives are overwhelming (and of course, impractical).
That’s why I had the offhand suggestion of targeting second and further children, you’ve targeting those who haven’t written off having children, but may well hesitate because they have an idea of the possible costs.
Yeah. Oh, there’s other reasons to care as has been mentioned, but the reason Trump and company care is racism and general xenophobia. They’re believers in “white genocide” and “the Great Replacement” and all that nonsense.
It’s also self inflicted. Not only is their vicious misogyny a good way to drive off women, but their belief in the “one drop rule” makes the elimination of what they would consider the “white race” nearly inevitable. Since they artificially decide people don’t count as white if they have any “non white” ancestry at all, given how humans tend to screw around you’ll end up with fewer and fewer “white” people over time short of doing something like isolating all the “real white people” on some unreachable island.
It produces the silly future hypothetical situation where you could have hundreds of millions of people who look white, but none of them are really white. A “genocide” where nobody died, but produced entirely by counting people in a bigoted fashion.
I suspect it is. The decision is a cultural, psychosocial, and emotional one. Often no amount of money can override those factors.
My hope is that the current worldwide anti immigration movement will quickly be the dog that catches the car. Or corners the bear it was chasing? The impact of successful expulsions and a net outflow of migration from “developed” countries may be quick and severe to economies. Maybe voting public’s are capable of having lessons learned and support intelligent immigration reform that appreciates the need for the younger workforce.
Of course maybe I will get drafted for an NBA team …
Back when late wife and I were considering those decisions as well-off 30-something YUPPIE DINKs we figured that including the full opportunity cost of foregone career(s) it was $1M per child. And those were late 1980s dollars. Figure $5M today.
No kids for us. Too huge a sacrifice by 100x or more. Not even close.
I see this as a big factor in that I think there are more of the latter than the former out there. Certainly there are plenty of people who want children but just can’t afford to raise them or they have busy lives that can’t support the amount of time it takes out of their lives. But I do think there are just as many, if not more, who are like me and wouldn’t want to have and raise a child for any reason, regardless if I had the money and resources to do so because of how much of a burden they are and how it is hard to have a life outside of raising a child.
I personally welcome a decreasing human population, despite the economic chaos it will cause, since fewer people mean less resources being used, which means less waste and pollution in the long run. Ultimately it is better for the planet and all the other species that inhabit it.
Heck, even in non-white-dominant societies the general vibe of “the wrong group are breeding more” (than the presumed “betters” who should be the righteous leaders) is present, only expressing itself in different sub-ethnic or socioeconomic lines.
Which illustrates the bimodality of it. Yeah pretty sure the cost per each of our four kids is somewhere in that range. Would a lifestyle and stuff that $4 to 20 million more afford us have satisfied us more than the four kids have? It would allow us to leave a bigger estate, so some charities or nieces and nephews would have benefited…
In any case I think few make that fiscal choice.
I doubt it; look at Japan. They’ve been suffering increasing demographic issues for many years now and still refuse to budge on the issue.
But is Japanese society collapsing?
I’ve never been there, but it looks to me like Tokyo is a pretty good place to live.
The small villages in rural areas of Japan are. drying up and dying, but that’s true in America, too. And maybe the statistics on the Japanese social security system predict insolvancy, but that’s true in America, too.
I have a feeling that the people who love to predict disaster due to demographics are going to be disappointed. In most countries, Life will go on with 1.4 babies per family.
(Now, on the other hand, at zero point 7 babies, S. Korea is in genuine trouble. But they have a unique (and, I think, insane) cultural attitude about work being more important than family. That’s an attitude which didnt exist 60 years ago, and which they will have to change during the next 60 years.)
It does seem to be slowly grinding down, and there’s no prospect of things getting better. Especially since given the time delays inherent in human reproduction even if they suddenly started breeding like rabbits it’d still be about twenty years before they could get more people into the economy and correct course. And that’s highly unlikely.
Bottom line: immigration and emigration are the only quick way of re-balancing demographics, however much the fact offends the xenophobes.
In 20 years, the elderly will have died off.That should solve a lot of the supposed demogtaphic problem.
In 2045, I doubt if Tokyo will be a decaying, emptying slum with homeless camps under every bridge.
As for New York and San Fransisco, I am less sure. 
Social problems are causef by much more than aging demographics.
Well, right now we are over 8 billion in planet wide population. If we drop below 3 billion, you can get back to me with that question.
A big step in the right direction is to create a cabinet position called, “Population Management”, and appoint Bill Burr as manager. LOL
Are you volunteering to be one of the 5 billion who disappears, or…?
Well, eventually I will disappear. We don’t need anything dramatic. We just need to produce fewer people than the number of people dying, and this can happen painlessly over an extended period of time.
I mean it very much does look like a trend that’s slowing - it slowed dramatically for about 15 years (~2001-2016, 2.68-2.54) and very nearly looked like it would level off, then suddenly declined from 2016-2020, then seems to be levelling off again. I’m not saying it won’t go below 2.1, and frankly I’m not sure it shouldn’t, but it’s not in freefall the way it was in, say, the 1970’s.