Empty Planet

[Soren Ras]

As was foretold in the Prophecy of Idiocracy. 
 

That movie is getting less funny every year…

 

—

Soren

[Skywalkre]

Only a third of a way through this but some interesting takeaways from this guy.

The opening clip had me hooked with that statistic he throws out. 

Where I'm at currently he's talking about how it's not that women don't want children.  Instead, most claim they do and it just doesn't happen for various reasons.  That's new to me.  My understanding was that a large swathe of women simply didn't want kids.  Instead, it turns out most do but for so many the time is just never 'right' and it doesn't happen at all.

His bit about the numbers... and how quickly you get a halving of birth rates based on birth rate was also enlightening.  Seems very likely we'll see some near collapse conditions in some of the countries with the lowest birth rates in the next two decades or so. 

[Josh]

Got about a third to half way through and it started to get a lot less informational and technical and I gave up on it. But his basic point about mothers having the same number of children and more or more women simply not having any is interesting, although not altogether surprising.

[Skywalkre]

(Heh... I was just about to post in here.)

I went and found the documentary that guy made.  The first part of three is available on YT.  If you didn't make it through the podcast I'll save you the trouble of what he says in part one (though minus the first 10m of the documentary I thought it was pretty good).

Population decline is something that not a lot of folks are talking about... but what he argues is that what we hear about it is not accurate. 

- Population decline doesn't appear to be the result of a large number of women not wanting to have kids.  He claims there's good research to support that 80-90% of all women want kids (and it's similar for men though I don't remember the %).

- As you mentioned population decline isn't from women who have kids having fewer kids.  When you break down mothers into how many kids they have it's the same %s for small through large families as it was in the past.  It's just there's less women having any kids which is leading to decline.

- Population decline isn't due to economic hardship.  On the contrary when women get out of poverty the number of kids they have drastically declines.  (He touches on how 70% of all countries are below the population sustainability figure of 2.0-2.1 kids per woman... but the places that are still above that, like sub-saharan Africa, are seeing their rates plummeting quickly.) 

- Population decline is also happening (and continues to trend downward) in countries that have very liberal and generous benefits to parents so it's not so easy to address as just giving more time off after a birth or more money/tax breaks/whatever to parents.

- He argues many women have been led to believe that births over the age of 40 are far more likely than is actually the case.

Taking these all together his thesis is basically that women today are basically putting off families for the 'right time'... and that for many that right time never comes and they end up not having any.  For many in the West this means spending their 20s getting educated, their late 20s-early 30s building their career,  a mad dash in their late 30s to find a partner (hopefully), and their very late 30s/early 40s trying to have kids (which is more difficult then they were led to believe).

He had a stat that showed if a women hasn't had a kid by 30 her odds of having one are pretty low (I forget the exact %).

He then went on to pinpoint major economic/social incidents in various countries over the last several decades that likely led to women putting off having kids, the birth rates plummeted in these focus studied countries after said events, and in every county they just never come back up.

He never explains why they never come back up (and this is universal... no one has ever reversed this trend).  I saw this in the book that led me to make this thread - once they go down (the book said something like 1.7 or so) below a certain figure they never recover.

Why?

[DB]

This overlaps strongly with the other discussion about relationships between women and men.

More women are competing in the jobs market than in previous generations. For women to be equally successful (given an otherwise level playing field) in any job, they will have to work as long and as hard as successful men do.

As a consequence, they cannot afford to maintain that level of commitment and take two years or more out to have two kids in their early careers. When they finally notice the ticking time bomb that is the exponential decrease in fertility with age, they find themselves in a position where the men they want to have kids with aren't interested in a "boss bitch" pushing 40, so they get one or none children and there you go.

Yes, this is broad brush, and implicitly covers nominally "white collar" work, and the social demographic that is usually associated with that, but that's the demographic where the children aren't being born - blue collar and welfare seems to be able to pump out the worthless mouths just fine.

[Skywalkre]

7 minutes ago, DB said:

This overlaps strongly with the other discussion about relationships between women and men.

More women are competing in the jobs market than in previous generations. For women to be equally successful (given an otherwise level playing field) in any job, they will have to work as long and as hard as successful men do.

As a consequence, they cannot afford to maintain that level of commitment and take two years or more out to have two kids in their early careers. When they finally notice the ticking time bomb that is the exponential decrease in fertility with age, they find themselves in a position where the men they want to have kids with aren't interested in a "boss bitch" pushing 40, so they get one or none children and there you go.

Yes, this is broad brush, and implicitly covers nominally "white collar" work, and the social demographic that is usually associated with that, but that's the demographic where the children aren't being born - blue collar and welfare seems to be able to pump out the worthless mouths just fine.

I guess that depends on what we consider blue collar.  My last job clearly was... but there were plenty of career women who were trying to rise up the admin ranks.

But, yeah, there is a lot of overlap with the discussion that was going on in another thread.  The podcast host above is apparently working on a book on that very subject.  In the interview above he was sharing some of the stats he's found that seem to reinforce the points the documentary maker was arguing.  One was the highest rate of use of antidepressants of any 5-year group based on sex is 40-45 y/o women.  Seems clear why that would be the case given what the documentary maker was saying...

Elsewhere I've seen stats on the 'gender gap' pay issue... and when you factor in women who have had kids they're making what they would have had they not taken time off to have kids.  As one pundit put it it's not that men make more than women it's that everyone makes more than mothers.

Now, as we're seeing, as there are fewer mothers women are actually starting to outpace men in some Western countries and given sex disparities in college graduates now that trend is going to continue and the gap widen.

[DB]

I suppose I conflated "blue collar" with "heavy manual labour", forgetting all of the factory jobs, and the customer facing service jobs too. Still, many of those have fixed working hours or allow part time work, and generally aren't jobs taken by thrusting types who think they're CEO-bound if they just work another hour a day. We're obviously using a very broad brush here - I know several (actually, many) women who have taken that time to have kids at a sensible age and through being competent still excel in their roles at work. Pretty much universally, though, they settle at one or two kids and stop, That's not replacement rate, of course.

On the gender pay gap thing, the entire argument is now based on a deliberately false presentation of the data to the credulous, and it's the same tactic used by those who want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, and they're often the same people. For those in high positions arguing that "something needs to be done", that's a deliberate lie, not ignorance.

[Skywalkre]

Back to the population decline issue... a conclusion I've seen in discussion on modern dating is a a majority of blame can be put on the issue of hypergamy coupled to women starting to outpace men in educational (and likely work) achievements.  If that was the major issue then maybe it would just be a decade or two and maybe women's norms would shift?

But you look at what this guy talks about in the documentary above... and this decline started in many countries WAY before women started making up the majority of degree holders.  In all those countries... once birth rate dipped to a certain point below replacement rate it just never recovered.

Again... why?  It's kind of disconcerting when the evidence seems clear we're heading in this direction across the board and no one has been able to reverse the trend.  Moving from population decline to collapse may actually be a real concern.  The book I read that started this thread said we could see China down to around 700 million by 2100... in that interview above some are saying we could see that in 3 decades. 

That will be some massive changes to how the world works if true... and no one is talking about it.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Skywalkre

[Ssnake]

Well, we are.

The people writing these books/making these documentaries/podcasts and their audicences are.

It's not yet a mainstream issue because, while it's a highly deterministic thing, right now the world population is still on the rise and the UN is still substantially overpredicting the world population. It's not yet a mainstream topic, and probably won't be until maybe 2040...2050.

[Josh]

19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, we are.

The people writing these books/making these documentaries/podcasts and their audicences are.

It's not yet a mainstream issue because, while it's a highly deterministic thing, right now the world population is still on the rise and the UN is still substantially overpredicting the world population. It's not yet a mainstream topic, and probably won't be until maybe 2040...2050.

Early in the podcast they make the point that because the effect takes so long to occur despite being very predictable, no one notices in the short term. But solutions obvious can't come into play for two decades at least, so it becomes harder to address the more you put it off. Very much like climate change, if you believe in that sort of thing.

At the national level I suspect some countries simply spiral downward into economic collapse or Lost Decades. I think it is inevitable China goes the Lost Decade route at this point; the loss numbers are too catastrophic even inside two decades for any kind of reversal. By some time in the 2030s they will be losing their working age population at a rate of tens of millions per year. You can postpone the retirement age to offset that a few years, but that only kicks the can down the road.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Josh

[Skywalkre]

On 4/4/2023 at 9:51 AM, Josh said:

Early in the podcast they make the point that because the effect takes so long to occur despite being very predictable, no one notices in the short term. But solutions obvious can't come into play for two decades at least, so it becomes harder to address the more you put it off. Very much like climate change, if you believe in that sort of thing.

In either the podcast or the first part of the documentary they talk about how in a few countries the government has undertaken steps to increase the birth rate through a public campaigns coupled to incentives.  Early results show that there's a short term spike in births... followed by an even steeper decline in birth rates.  The theory is folks who were already set on having kids soon simply took advantage of the incentives and had the kids a bit earlier.

Educating folks about this is obviously a big part of what needs to be done.  The documentary does a decent enough job of highlighting how when you talk to the average person they still believe population is booming and the notion of population decline/collapse is comical.

But I think for it really to sink it you need to highlight the potential economic impacts (what was that phrase from Clinton's advisor, "it's about the economy, stupid"?).  In the documentary he had this interesting visual he showed people highlighting how the number of folks approaching retirement compared to the number of young adults entering the workforce.  In many places that's already around 2:1 in favor of the retirees and in countries with social safety nets (many 1st world, western nations) those programs simply become untenable.  Throw in discussion about values of homes, a major source of wealth for many, plummeting when there are less people needing them and I think you may finally start to wake people up to this.

But that would still take time... and need to be done across various countries and by leading politicians consistently.  We're nowhere near that.

[Ssnake]

Nobody is going to have kids because of

- the global economy

- the needs of the nation

- the greater good

Either "they happen" or because people want them. We've largely eliminated accidental pregnancies, and it turns out that what people want isn't enough to keep the population stable. If you want more accidental pregnancies again, I suggest rolling blackouts.

[urbanoid]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:20 PM, Skywalkre said:

He never explains why they never come back up (and this is universal... no one has ever reversed this trend).  I saw this in the book that led me to make this thread - once they go down (the book said something like 1.7 or so) below a certain figure they never recover.

Why?

That's why those that recovered are interesting cases. The Czechs had some ~1,1 TFR around 2000 (one of the lowest, if not the lowest in the world), they brought it back to 1,71.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/6/2023 at 3:33 PM, Ssnake said:

Nobody is going to have kids because of

- the global economy

- the needs of the nation

- the greater good

Either "they happen" or because people want them. We've largely eliminated accidental pregnancies, and it turns out that what people want isn't enough to keep the population stable. If you want more accidental pregnancies again, I suggest rolling blackouts.

It's not so much those things would alone lead to it... but more the public discourse needs to cover every aspect of this.

That documentary states, and another unrelated study highlighted on reddit a few days ago, that most women (at least 80%) want to have kids but not all of them do.  There's this perception it's easy to have kids late in age (it's not).  There are economic factors that have result in some couples putting them off (til they can't have them at all).  There are some who hesitate because they're under the impression our population is booming and continuing to do so (it's not).

Combine a more honest discussion with the couples considering kids to policy makers being cognizant about what will happen if nothing is changed... maybe our attitude as a society would shift to support both emotionally/socially and economically the choice of couples having kids.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/7/2023 at 3:27 AM, urbanoid said:

That's why those that recovered are interesting cases. The Czechs had some ~1,1 TFR around 2000 (one of the lowest, if not the lowest in the world), they brought it back to 1,71.

Odd... they seem to be the one exception to the rule (just looked them up... forecasts have them as pretty stable for several decades and then growing).

So... what's going on with the Czechs that's different from basically everywhere else in Europe, and the planet?

[urbanoid]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Odd... they seem to be the one exception to the rule (just looked them up... forecasts have them as pretty stable for several decades and then growing).

So... what's going on with the Czechs that's different from basically everywhere else in Europe, and the planet?

Some points made by a Polish expert examining Czech policies from the interview:

- Czech approach emphasizes work-life balance, unlike in other countries where it's 'what to do so the kid doesn't interfere with work'

- system is made around giving mother a choice - to either allow her to return to work or stay at home with the kid

- financial incentive - up to 15k USD in 3 years, 5k per/year, but... if another child is born within the three years the first benefit is paid in full plus there's also another one being paid for the next child

- the effect is that only 22% of Czech mothers with children younger than 3 work (one of the lowest in Europe), while after that 90% of them work - which in turn is one of the highest ratios in Europe.

 

The expert said that those are policies adjusted to their values and wouldn't necessarily have the same effects when transplanted e.g. in Poland. He said that in a survey the Czechs had twice the share of people saying that bringing up children is a matter of responsibility to the society, compared to Poles. In effect nobody resents a Czech mother staying home for 3 years, while it wouldn't necessarily be the case in Poland, where we believe that work is what we owe the society - in effect even a stay-at-home mother herself might feel 'socially useless'. He says our policies should be different since as a society we're more geared towards workism than familism.

One of the conclusions was that while financial assistance is necessary (either as cash or tax reliefs), it won't solve the problem on its own. It also requires changes in social consciousness - to persuade people that a family is a value and children are not a burden.

Since Polish government introduced 500+ (~125 USD per child per month) in 2016 the TFR barely rose (only to fall again due to pandemic and later war beyond our borders, but that's another story). The interesting thing is that since 2016 a number of third and fourth children rose, while those of first and second ones fell. So... those who already had and wanted kids anyway simply had more of them, while in general less people decided to start families.

 

[DB]

Most people probably wouldn't resent women from staying at home for 3 years to bring up children. They resent the habit seen several times in my career where women would stay away from work until the company was no longer required to pay any wages, come back for a while, have another child and then stay away again, still getting paid, then decide not to return to work after that.

From here: https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/pay

So that's 12 weeks of 90% pay and 66 weeks of reduced pay, with no reward for the company at the end of it.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/17/2023 at 3:02 AM, urbanoid said:

Some points made by a Polish expert examining Czech policies from the interview:

- Czech approach emphasizes work-life balance, unlike in other countries where it's 'what to do so the kid doesn't interfere with work'

- system is made around giving mother a choice - to either allow her to return to work or stay at home with the kid

- financial incentive - up to 15k USD in 3 years, 5k per/year, but... if another child is born within the three years the first benefit is paid in full plus there's also another one being paid for the next child

- the effect is that only 22% of Czech mothers with children younger than 3 work (one of the lowest in Europe), while after that 90% of them work - which in turn is one of the highest ratios in Europe.

 

The expert said that those are policies adjusted to their values and wouldn't necessarily have the same effects when transplanted e.g. in Poland. He said that in a survey the Czechs had twice the share of people saying that bringing up children is a matter of responsibility to the society, compared to Poles. In effect nobody resents a Czech mother staying home for 3 years, while it wouldn't necessarily be the case in Poland, where we believe that work is what we owe the society - in effect even a stay-at-home mother herself might feel 'socially useless'. He says our policies should be different since as a society we're more geared towards workism than familism.

One of the conclusions was that while financial assistance is necessary (either as cash or tax reliefs), it won't solve the problem on its own. It also requires changes in social consciousness - to persuade people that a family is a value and children are not a burden.

Since Polish government introduced 500+ (~125 USD per child per month) in 2016 the TFR barely rose (only to fall again due to pandemic and later war beyond our borders, but that's another story). The interesting thing is that since 2016 a number of third and fourth children rose, while those of first and second ones fell. So... those who already had and wanted kids anyway simply had more of them, while in general less people decided to start families.

To me it sounds more like the difference here isn't financial incentives (that's been tried in countless countries with no real effect) but rather the social outlook seems to be unique with Czechs compared to basically every other Western nation.

What I'm curious about is how did it manage to stay that way with the modern, interwoven reality of life... and how do you get that same social outlook to take root everywhere else?

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

To me it sounds more like the difference here isn't financial incentives (that's been tried in countless countries with no real effect) but rather the social outlook seems to be unique with Czechs compared to basically every other Western nation.

What I'm curious about is how did it manage to stay that way with the modern, interwoven reality of life... and how do you get that same social outlook to take root everywhere else?

It gets even better. You'd normally associate decent fertility rate with the society being at least somewhat religious, while the Czechs are one of the most atheist nations in the world.

Let's remember that their TFR is still below the replacement level, the most interesting thing here is that they managed to largely turn it around - bouncing back to ~1,7 from 1,0-1,1 is impressive. Whether the trend continues remains to be seen.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution, they have to be tailored individually to nations in question. In some cases there may be no practical solutions at all.

[DB]

The UK's fertility rate has been steady at about 1.75 for several years, although longer term when there are drops, they've been notably larger than the recoveries thereafter.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/fertility-rate

The projected numbers are from the UN, so take those with the usual pinch of raised eyebrow.

The propaganda throughout my entire life has been that the world has too many people, and so it's "mature" to limit the number of children you have, and that's before you get the doom-and-gloom crowd that "won't bring a child into this awful world", because they for some inexplicable reason think that today is worse in any reasonable metric than some past idyll, in part due to the "poverty industry" telling them so.

Add in the "I want to live my own life, not sacrifice it all for some bawling clump of cells" and you are were we are.

[17thfabn]

20 hours ago, DB said:

The UK's fertility rate has been steady at about 1.75 for several years, although longer term when there are drops, they've been notably larger than the recoveries thereafter.

What is the rate in the native population vs. recent immigrants? 

[DB]

Don't know, don't care.

[Josh]

Immigration is a way out for those countries willing to accept it and who have enough people willing to immigrate.

The US could make new Americans indefinitely depending on how it defines the term.

[urbanoid]

I'd rather choose decline and dying out instead of importing thirdworlders. 

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I'd rather choose decline and dying out instead of importing thirdworlders. 

Fair enough, but the US has always been a mongrel nation of third worlds. If you ever come here. Take a walk through Queens. Jackson Heights has a a little Nepal. Why? I have no idea. But we can stamp out Americans all day and skip the the 18 year entry cost.