1950 Census Data released (Who's in charge, Pfizer?)

[oxmixmudd]

And a renewed emphasis on the virtues of marriage and traditional nuclear families

The world population is 8 billion. We don't need to worry all that much about declining birth rates, at least for now.

[rogue06]

I think you may also find that a lot of younger people are looking at the world right now and thinking "Why bring children into this?" That is certainly a comment I have heard from my own and the adult children of friends and family who have no desire to start a a family because they have concerns about what sort of future life any children they produce might have.

I think the same argument could be made in most generations.

Why bring children into a world wracked by the Great War?

Why bring children into a world suffering from a decade-long economic calamity?

Why bring children into a world wracked by another World War?

Why bring children into a world existing under the threat of nuclear annihilation?

[rogue06]

Yeah, i doubt we are seriously and any danger of any sort of population implosion ... unless the main concern is maintaining a white european majority.

The Japanese are quite concerned with their low birth rate -- and even in China, which until recently had a one child policy, is now getting a bit concerned over their low birth rate (although it still barely replaces the current population, but probably not for long)

[Stoic]

The Japanese are quite concerned with their low birth rate -- and even in China, which until recently had a one child policy, is now getting a bit concerned over their low birth rate (although it still barely replaces the current population, but probably not for long)

Adjusting from a population that is growing to one that is not growing will be a bit of a headache, but it needs to be done at some point. Why not now?

A shrinking population causes even more headaches, but should return dividends also.

[oxmixmudd]

The Japanese are quite concerned with their low birth rate -- and even in China, which until recently had a one child policy, is now getting a bit concerned over their low birth rate (although it still barely replaces the current population, but probably not for long)

The Japanese are mostly a homogenous population. Insufficient birthrate can cause a notional decline in population..

The US is and has been for a long time an immigration destination of choice. We have no shortage of new people coming in. The only thing a low birthrate does to us is make room for more immigrants.

[Starlight]

Another factor in lower reproduction rates is people waiting to start having kids (thanks to birth control) because they either want to be more financially stable

I do tend to think it's probably economic factors including women working.

My father used to tell me that when he was growing up, you typically bought your first house for 3 times your annual income. And women of that generation often didn't work at all or worked only part time, so they were at home to look after any kids.

A quick google tells me that the median house price in my country is now 17 times the median annual income. Obviously this is a very different financial pressure on any young couple dreaming of having a house and family. They will need both of them working full time, and for an extra decade or so, before they can afford a house. Even then, they are not going to be able to afford the lose of half their income if one of them were to quit their job and raise the children, and are going to struggle with additional costs of child care if they decide to have children while still working full time.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think the same argument could be made in most generations.

Why bring children into a world wracked by the Great War?

Why bring children into a world suffering from a decade-long economic calamity?

Why bring children into a world wracked by another World War?

Why bring children into a world existing under the threat of nuclear annihilation?

I suspect that today with so many [especially younger] people being more aware of global issues and news reporting thanks to the internet it is more direct.

As for the fate of future generations I have similar feelings when I see very young children today. I wonder what their lives will be like and what sort of world they will be living in when they reach my age. I certainly do not envy them

[EvoUK]

I do tend to think it's probably economic factors including women working.

My father used to tell me that when he was growing up, you typically bought your first house for 3 times your annual income. And women of that generation often didn't work at all or worked only part time, so they were at home to look after any kids.

A quick google tells me that the median house price in my country is now 17 times the median annual income. Obviously this is a very different financial pressure on any young couple dreaming of having a house and family. They will need both of them working full time, and for an extra decade or so, before they can afford a house. Even then, they are not going to be able to afford the lose of half their income if one of them were to quit their job and raise the children, and are going to struggle with additional costs of child care if they decide to have children while still working full time.

Very much this - I am surprised it hasn't been noted more often in this thread. Most of the 'young' (under 40) people I know have had the same issue when starting a family. My wife and I want to start a family, but there is certainly no way one of us could stay home and live on one salary - and the costs of childcare in the UK is so high that in many cases one person is working just to break even on childcare costs.

[tabibito]

Very much this - I am surprised it hasn't been noted more often in this thread. Most of the 'young' (under 40) people I know have had the same issue when starting a family. My wife and I want to start a family, but there is certainly no way one of us could stay home and live on one salary - and the costs of childcare in the UK is so high that in many cases one person is working just to break even on childcare costs.

Strange, isn't it? A household of four could live comfortably through the 1960s and, with slowly reducing ease, into the 1980s on one wage. Now people are hard-pressed to support two on a single wage.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think the same argument could be made in most generations.

Why bring children into a world wracked by the Great War?

Why bring children into a world suffering from a decade-long economic calamity?

Why bring children into a world wracked by another World War?

Why bring children into a world existing under the threat of nuclear annihilation?

There have always been Misanthropes like that.

There are multiple reasons why the birthrate is falling, some are positive things that have happened, some are negative.

Off the top of my head:
Birth control availability means women (married or otherwise) don't end up pregnant as often.
People waiting longer to get married and start a family.
Societal shifts on views of unmarried men/women.
The increasing expense of having children.
Women being in the workforce and not wanting to interrupt their career to have kids.
Urbanization leading towards the lack of benefit of a large family. (You don't need more family to tend a farm)
The lack of a drive to have a large family. (i.e. go forth and multiply)
Less focus on family legacy/family name.

[rogue06]

Adjusting from a population that is growing to one that is not growing will be a bit of a headache, but it needs to be done at some point. Why not now?

A shrinking population causes even more headaches, but should return dividends also.

What?

[rogue06]

I do tend to think it's probably economic factors including women working.

My father used to tell me that when he was growing up, you typically bought your first house for 3 times your annual income. And women of that generation often didn't work at all or worked only part time, so they were at home to look after any kids.

A quick google tells me that the median house price in my country is now 17 times the median annual income. Obviously this is a very different financial pressure on any young couple dreaming of having a house and family. They will need both of them working full time, and for an extra decade or so, before they can afford a house. Even then, they are not going to be able to afford the lose of half their income if one of them were to quit their job and raise the children, and are going to struggle with additional costs of child care if they decide to have children while still working full time.

When I was a young kid only one of my friends had a mother who had a job, which everyone thought was a bit odd. By the time I was in high school more mothers worked but it was still a rather small minority and the joke was that she typically made enough to pay for someone to look after the kids so that she could work.

[Starlight]

Strange, isn't it? A household of four could live comfortably through the 1960s and, with slowly reducing ease, into the 1980s on one wage. Now people are hard-pressed to support two on a single wage.

Yep. Definitely worth asking "what went wrong to make that happen?"

Things I would tend to point to as possible answers would be:
1. The decreasing power of unions over that period, meaning that less pressure was being placed on company bosses to raise worker wages when the company made large profits.
2. Decreased taxation on the rich, meaning the super-rich could get super-richer and increasingly bribe politicians to control political policy so it helped them rather than the average person, and they could 'invest in real estate' thus buying up huge swathes of housing that then limited supply for the average person.
3. Neo-liberalism and deregulation. The Reaganomics policies in the 80s, copied across the Western world, skyrocketed inequality and led to wages stagnating while the rich got much richer. Wall St was allowed to invest in dubious things and their investments increasingly wreaked havoc in markets, hurting the average person.
4. Possibly women in the workforce. I'm less sure about this one, as I don't know as much about it as the others, but surely as society transitioned from almost no women in the workforce to almost all women in the workforce, that effective doubling of the total people available in the labor market must have exerted a downward pressure on wages as it doubles demand for jobs without increasing the supply of them.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yep. Definitely worth asking "what went wrong to make that happen?"

Things I would tend to point to as possible answers would be:
1. The decreasing power of unions over that period, meaning that less pressure was being placed on company bosses to raise worker wages when the company made large profits.
2. Decreased taxation on the rich, meaning the super-rich could get super-richer and increasingly bribe politicians to control political policy so it helped them rather than the average person, and they could 'invest in real estate' thus buying up huge swathes of housing that then limited supply for the average person.
3. Neo-liberalism and deregulation. The Reaganomics policies in the 80s, copied across the Western world, skyrocketed inequality and led to wages stagnating while the rich got much richer. Wall St was allowed to invest in dubious things and their investments increasingly wreaked havoc in markets, hurting the average person.
4. Possibly women in the workforce. I'm less sure about this one, as I don't know as much about it as the others, but surely as society transitioned from almost no women in the workforce to almost all women in the workforce, that effective doubling of the total people available in the labor market must have exerted a downward pressure on wages as it doubles demand for jobs without increasing the supply of them.

Don't forget the increase in "stuff" that is now almost considered essential. Cable/internet over broadcast TV, Cell Phones over landlines, etc. The household used to be able to get by with less "stuff", which meant less money going out the wallet every month. Now, these things are considered standard things that many consider needs. The increasing price of housing (rental/purchase) hasn't helped either.

[tabibito]

Yep. Definitely worth asking "what went wrong to make that happen?"

Things I would tend to point to as possible answers would be:
1. The decreasing power of unions over that period, meaning that less pressure was being placed on company bosses to raise worker wages when the company made large profits.

Add to that, the (seemingly) new process of tailoring unemployment to prevent the need to meet reasonable demands. I thought that I was being paranoid in thinking that was the case for many years, until the admission was made by the minister of finance here sometime last year. I don't think the sudden reductions in unemployment figures post Covid are mere happenstance - a burst of prosperity is needed to ameliorate the costs.
Likewise all the government and media hype about rapacious unions creating inflation, only to have the former prime minister (in office at the time all this was happening) some thirty odd years later admitting that the chief cause of inflation had been increases in oil prices.

2. Decreased taxation on the rich, meaning the super-rich could get super-richer and increasingly bribe politicians to control political policy so it helped them rather than the average person, and they could 'invest in real estate' thus buying up huge swathes of housing that then limited supply for the average person.

Not a factor. The old system acted far more thoroughly to prevent people from becoming rich than the reduced taxation does. I can still remember co-workers who worked 13 days in a fortnight getting an after tax pay 50c higher than that of the previous fortnight, when they had worked 12 days.

3. Neo-liberalism and deregulation. The Reaganomics policies in the 80s, copied across the Western world, skyrocketed inequality and led to wages stagnating while the rich got much richer. Wall St was allowed to invest in dubious things and their investments increasingly wreaked havoc in markets, hurting the average person.

Not sure about stock markets. But as to the rest, agreed.

4. Possibly women in the workforce. I'm less sure about this one, as I don't know as much about it as the others, but surely as society transitioned from almost no women in the workforce to almost all women in the workforce, that effective doubling of the total people available in the labor market must have exerted a downward pressure on wages as it doubles demand for jobs without increasing the supply of them.

Certainly a factor, which leads to the question - did women actually gain anything worthwhile? That isn't a claim that it should not have happened, nor that a woman should be limited in seeking self-fulfilment ... Just ... is any anyone really better off overall? Women have largely gone from not being given a place in the wider world to being forced to work to help provide for a decent home life.