The fertility rate is declining across almost all types of societies: India is below replacement and I think many African countries' fertility rate has halved in the last 2 decades. It is happening even before countries become rich or developed.
Therefore, one can find many bespoke and pleasing theories. The one that seems the most likely to me and the one that people don't want to entertain is it is a fundamental or logical outcome of "freedom of choice" and liberalism. The government of Japan just recently produced a study that women born in 2005; 42% of them will have 0 children. If you listen to demographers that study the topic, the main problem in the fertility rate decline is not that women are choosing to have 2 children instead of 3; it's the proportion of women that have 0 children. In Japan, the problem is not just 0 children; a large proportion of the women who have 0 children have never been in relationships, never kissed someone, never been married, etc. Many right wingers point to the questionable rise in homosexuality in the west in the last few years; it has jumped a lot among women only and especially young women. Many of these women actually have not been with another woman, but are LGBTQ. I've taught at a high school recently and if you've been around these girls; they are mostly opting out of being with guys. Given birth control and the structure of the modern economy where women are on more equal footing and do not need to rely on men for their incomes; they are no longer compelled by various forces in life to settle and have kids; especially with men at or below their level. There is that okcupid study that women's ratings of men are structurally lower than men's ratings of women; most women think the average man is gross.
There is this newer wishcasting theory from conservatives that impugns urbanization and density for the fertility decline. They have the correlation of density and fertility rate decline that goes back through time. But, the thing about conservatives is they are some of the least reflective people of all and I think my theory actually can explain their theory as well along with other epiphenomenon: fertility rates are declining even among very religious groups like the mormons. If you think about the types of people who live in the exurbs or rural parts of America and not give them the conservative glow up; these are some of the least ambitious people in America and live extremely dull lives. Yes, the women there have more children, but it's almost like a forcing function. Life is so dull and meaningless in those areas; women are almost de facto forced into childrearing; there is an adverse selection phenomenon happening there.
The falling fertility rate comes from freedom and women CHOOSING not to have kids. The real reason no one wants to deal with. There is no solution to that.
That all could be true... but as my other notes point out, countries like Israel with very pro-natal policies have high fertility rates. And we are also seeing an increasing uptake in women freezing their eggs...
My take is that women are choosing to have children later - and then finding it more difficult than expected, and hence having less. I though technology could reverse this trend, which is why I thought the Danish data was a huge positive signal. I still hope this is case - but i have to respect the reversal in births in Denmark.
But I do agree that women are choosing to have less kids - particularly in theirs 20s.
There are countries that have higher fertility rates than other countries that are comparable, but my impression is that even amongst those they are declining. In math terms, they have a higher intercept I guess.
I don’t have time to go on a deep dive but I think even amish fertility is declining even though it is higher to begin with.
If you have seen Greg Clarks work; he’s made the case that cities have always been a fertility and general life shredder. It was very dangerous historically to live in London; not just its effect on fertility, but disease and violence as well. Yet the countryside and religious conservatives have always sent their offspring to the people shredder; those with ambitions.
America is a country founded by religious fanatics; and it results in similar phenomena as rest of the world. The problem with people that are like the haredim or amish will inherit the world is that the larger the percentage of haredim become of the total population in israel; the more modern they will become and choose not to have kids. We know in the US that the hasidic already have a huge defection rate of members that just completely drop out of their culture, especially among low status men as women are choosy with arranged marriages.
Look at the Consumer Price Index for Food in U.S. City Average (CPIUFDSL). In the 20-year period from 1948 to 1968 the index rose +34%. In the 5-year period from 2019 to 2024, the index rose +28%.
As an output model, an enterprise can only sustain or prosper if there is a sum benefit.
Families are enterprises. Because of the effects of impacted intraspecific predation, our apex species cannot achieve a baseline benefit for the generators of the familial enterprise.
The United States is the only developed nation that does mandate paid manternity leave.
The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world and the #1 cause of maternal mortality is "mental health", a.k.a. suicide.
The United States is the only country in the developed world where children are free game for marketers.
I will pencil in a substack post on demographic momentum, I built spreadsheets to illustrate that during 3 decades of teaching about the Chinese and Japanese economies. Population trends reflect the number of future mothers and not just current fertility. Even if fertility rates soar, on average women don't have children until their 20s. So it's roughly 2 decades before a fertility uptick leads to more total births and 4 decades before it starts to affect number of new entrants to the labor market. Most of the handwringing I read on fertility seems unaware of that.
But why low rates? Think of the opportunity costs for women.
Working is now a given, and having a child knocks a year or more out of a women's income stream. That's more true where childcare costs as much as a woman would earn at her job, a very real issue in my rural Virginia community where there are only 6 daycare slots for pre-toddlers in a population of 35,000. Higher education accentuates the income loss, and adds the potential of career interruption lowering future income, plus raises the age of childbearing. Then on top of daycare, there are the out of pocket costs of raising children, particularly as education means comparatively few leave home and fend for themselves until age 18 or later. Japanese labor statistics still reflect working age as beginning when someone finishes middle school, whereas today high school graduation is near universal and 70% get some form of higher education, whether a trade school or college. Of course for people with low incomes, dual earner households are important. Wages tend to rise with age. So by the time one or more in a household have incomes high enough to support having a family, it's too late.
From a historical perspective, child labor is no longer a factor for most households, unlike in the days of the family farm when children were inexpensive labor. You / the comments address lower mortality rates, and perhaps households are slow to adjust, but with better nutrition, better sanitation, vaccinations and antipyretics/antibiotics [probably in that order of importance] that's now ancient history. Today the driving factor is target family size.
'Why are fertility rates not rising?' is one question but I think 'why would you expect fertility rates to rise in a developed/rich economy?' is worth asking - given that evidence at a global level (eg https://www.gapminder.org/topics/babies-per-woman/) suggests that as women gain access to education and contraception/birth control, fertility rates tend to fall.
Urbanisation and female education rates are correlated as well...
I guess I assume that part of the genetic make up of humans encourages us to have more babies (a genetic tendency to not have babies would naturally not be passed on....) We did not get to 8bn humans by not wanting to have kids.
Lots of reasons for falling birth rates. But I think a big one is the lack of social pressure to get married and have kids these days. Prior to say the 1990's, you were treated as very odd if you did not marry or have kids by say early 30's. You were a weird bachelor or a spinster. There was a lot of family pressure to get married, have kids. But I noticed in my circle of friends and aquaintences, during the 1990's this pressure began to subside. It was OK to be a guy in your 30's 40's just floating around the world, living a permanent youth, not growing up, not maturing, and not getting married or having kids, and nobody cared. Nobody criticized you or labeled you. I'm shocked at the number of friends I have that never married and even more that had no kids. Nieces, nephews, friends kids....are also waiting a LONG time.
Putting in the work to find the right partner, taking the risk to get married, taking the risks and financial obligation to have kids.....takes a lot of effort & faith. People won't do it as much if they are not pressured. Because it is DIFFICULT, RISKY, and SCARY. My parents got married early because there was pressure to do so back in the early 1960's. I'm not sure they would do so if they were born today.
The dramatic fall in organized religion & church attendence has to have a lot to do with it too.
I dont disagree with this - but in place like Japan or Korea the pressure to get married and have kids has remained pretty strong, and fertility has collapsed. On the other hand, in Israel, there is a strong social pressure to have kids, and they have a high fertility rate. Israeli government has helped with a very supportive medical system as well
Where do you get your stats from? Do you collate them from different sources for each article or do you use one or two services for all of them.
Check out the latest information on GLP-1 agonist drugs like Ozempic/Wegovy and obesity. There is some very interesting information on what causes obesity, mainly the breaking of the brain/gut connection that creates satiety. Once a person becomes obese they are always hungry, so even if they go on a diet and lose a bunch of weight they will continue to not feel satiated, which in turn makes them overeat and regain the weight.
Different sources generally - although I do use the Economist, IMF, World Bank and BIS alot - as well as Bloomberg.
Yes the weight loss drugs are very interesting. But will they just stop us over eating calories? Or are we really lacking macronutrients? Ozempic wont help with that - as its a food supply issue...
It does help with that. Your book is spot on about fast absorbing foods not helping with micronutrient absorption. Ozempic slows down digestion. It is NOT an appetite suppressant. It is actually the molecule that creates satiety. So a person feels satiated when they eat the right foods. I have been on it for 2 years now, and I actually eat more than I did before it took it. It just keeps me away from too much processed foods.
Interestingly when I went on it the first couple of months I had cravings for eating salads, fruit and felt like throwing up if there was any processed foods like pizza or Oreos around.
A few of the leading researchers have now discounted urbanization as a factor. Lyman Stone is one and just started a Substack. There appear to be two major drivers based on his research. One is quantifiable and that is lower infant mortality rates. People used to overshoot thinking a kid or two would die. Now they don’t worry about it and tend to undershoot. The second is amorphous. He calls it culture but it’s really preference of how many kids you want to have. None of the other factors seemed to explain it: https://lymanstone.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web. It’s interesting work.
Really interesting here. One other thing to remember, especially for someplace like Japan, is that when the population ages enough, the fertility rate will not matter with respect to the future of the population. once the number of potential mothers falls below a certain level, there is no replacement rate that is going to be reached.
regarding your thesis about cities discouraging childbearing, I think there is great truth to that. less space, more expensive and these days, more dangerous environments are not conducive to raising children.
finally, regarding the concept of a new economics, I believe that a key mistake that is made by analysts, at least those seeking answers to the human condition, is the per capita outcome. if GDP is growing more slowly than population (due to immigration like in Canada lately) then the people are worse off. That is the opposite of the goals typically espoused.
I would be very interested to see if GDP data were recalculated as Y = C + I + NX only. after all, G, when spent, winds up in one of the other buckets so arguably double counts. rather, a better measure is what the private sector creates and spends and invests, as that is the only place that an economy can beneficially move forward.
Falling population is not a "crisis". Peaking of global population circa 2050 is one of the few hopes for a sustainable future for humanity. Of course the present economic models, e.g. capitalism, that depend on endless growth will probably not work with dramatically declining populations so new economic models will have to be found.
Some thing climate change is a crisis, some dont. Some think unfunded pensions are a crisis, some dont. Some thing immigration is a crisis, some dont. Crisis is in the eye of the beholder - or more accurately, the eye of the voter, and whether politicians do anything about it. In this case - the political winds point to it being seen as a crisis
Have you heard of the 'mouse utopia' experiment (https://youtu.be/NgGLFozNM2o?si=FU0q_6KSdUjH6etq)? Mice were given all the food and water they needed and reproduced until they become limited by space. The population ultimately collapsed due to societal break down. It definitely lent weight to the urbanization argument.
There’s not much data to support yet I don’t think but since the covid shots miscarriages are more common as stated by doctors and nurses. Quick search on x for stories. Yes anecdotal. Lots of women say their cycle has been disrupted or other issues related. This is a nail in coffin imo
Overlooking the elephant in the room: the slow but certain sterilization effect of non-ionizing radiation. Nobody wants it to be true, so it's just ignored.
The last time I looked teenage pregnancy rates have continued falling. It all started with the introduction of the mobile phone. It would tie in with your modern life argument.
Teenage pregnancy started dropping in the 1980s I think and has continued. We have seen the rise of the over 40 pregnancy, but not enough to offset this trend...
The fertility rate is declining across almost all types of societies: India is below replacement and I think many African countries' fertility rate has halved in the last 2 decades. It is happening even before countries become rich or developed.
Therefore, one can find many bespoke and pleasing theories. The one that seems the most likely to me and the one that people don't want to entertain is it is a fundamental or logical outcome of "freedom of choice" and liberalism. The government of Japan just recently produced a study that women born in 2005; 42% of them will have 0 children. If you listen to demographers that study the topic, the main problem in the fertility rate decline is not that women are choosing to have 2 children instead of 3; it's the proportion of women that have 0 children. In Japan, the problem is not just 0 children; a large proportion of the women who have 0 children have never been in relationships, never kissed someone, never been married, etc. Many right wingers point to the questionable rise in homosexuality in the west in the last few years; it has jumped a lot among women only and especially young women. Many of these women actually have not been with another woman, but are LGBTQ. I've taught at a high school recently and if you've been around these girls; they are mostly opting out of being with guys. Given birth control and the structure of the modern economy where women are on more equal footing and do not need to rely on men for their incomes; they are no longer compelled by various forces in life to settle and have kids; especially with men at or below their level. There is that okcupid study that women's ratings of men are structurally lower than men's ratings of women; most women think the average man is gross.
There is this newer wishcasting theory from conservatives that impugns urbanization and density for the fertility decline. They have the correlation of density and fertility rate decline that goes back through time. But, the thing about conservatives is they are some of the least reflective people of all and I think my theory actually can explain their theory as well along with other epiphenomenon: fertility rates are declining even among very religious groups like the mormons. If you think about the types of people who live in the exurbs or rural parts of America and not give them the conservative glow up; these are some of the least ambitious people in America and live extremely dull lives. Yes, the women there have more children, but it's almost like a forcing function. Life is so dull and meaningless in those areas; women are almost de facto forced into childrearing; there is an adverse selection phenomenon happening there.
The falling fertility rate comes from freedom and women CHOOSING not to have kids. The real reason no one wants to deal with. There is no solution to that.
That all could be true... but as my other notes point out, countries like Israel with very pro-natal policies have high fertility rates. And we are also seeing an increasing uptake in women freezing their eggs...
My take is that women are choosing to have children later - and then finding it more difficult than expected, and hence having less. I though technology could reverse this trend, which is why I thought the Danish data was a huge positive signal. I still hope this is case - but i have to respect the reversal in births in Denmark.
But I do agree that women are choosing to have less kids - particularly in theirs 20s.
There are countries that have higher fertility rates than other countries that are comparable, but my impression is that even amongst those they are declining. In math terms, they have a higher intercept I guess.
I don’t have time to go on a deep dive but I think even amish fertility is declining even though it is higher to begin with.
If you have seen Greg Clarks work; he’s made the case that cities have always been a fertility and general life shredder. It was very dangerous historically to live in London; not just its effect on fertility, but disease and violence as well. Yet the countryside and religious conservatives have always sent their offspring to the people shredder; those with ambitions.
America is a country founded by religious fanatics; and it results in similar phenomena as rest of the world. The problem with people that are like the haredim or amish will inherit the world is that the larger the percentage of haredim become of the total population in israel; the more modern they will become and choose not to have kids. We know in the US that the hasidic already have a huge defection rate of members that just completely drop out of their culture, especially among low status men as women are choosy with arranged marriages.
Look at the Consumer Price Index for Food in U.S. City Average (CPIUFDSL). In the 20-year period from 1948 to 1968 the index rose +34%. In the 5-year period from 2019 to 2024, the index rose +28%.
Sometimes it's just that simple
As an output model, an enterprise can only sustain or prosper if there is a sum benefit.
Families are enterprises. Because of the effects of impacted intraspecific predation, our apex species cannot achieve a baseline benefit for the generators of the familial enterprise.
The United States is overtly hostile to mothers and children. This is the #1 reason why women are not having children.
please elaborate
Other than the limited holiday time - and free childcare, and expensive healthcare!
I mean limited free childcare
The United States is the only developed nation that does mandate paid manternity leave.
The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world and the #1 cause of maternal mortality is "mental health", a.k.a. suicide.
The United States is the only country in the developed world where children are free game for marketers.
That's a top 3. I have a good one hour soap box.
I will pencil in a substack post on demographic momentum, I built spreadsheets to illustrate that during 3 decades of teaching about the Chinese and Japanese economies. Population trends reflect the number of future mothers and not just current fertility. Even if fertility rates soar, on average women don't have children until their 20s. So it's roughly 2 decades before a fertility uptick leads to more total births and 4 decades before it starts to affect number of new entrants to the labor market. Most of the handwringing I read on fertility seems unaware of that.
But why low rates? Think of the opportunity costs for women.
Working is now a given, and having a child knocks a year or more out of a women's income stream. That's more true where childcare costs as much as a woman would earn at her job, a very real issue in my rural Virginia community where there are only 6 daycare slots for pre-toddlers in a population of 35,000. Higher education accentuates the income loss, and adds the potential of career interruption lowering future income, plus raises the age of childbearing. Then on top of daycare, there are the out of pocket costs of raising children, particularly as education means comparatively few leave home and fend for themselves until age 18 or later. Japanese labor statistics still reflect working age as beginning when someone finishes middle school, whereas today high school graduation is near universal and 70% get some form of higher education, whether a trade school or college. Of course for people with low incomes, dual earner households are important. Wages tend to rise with age. So by the time one or more in a household have incomes high enough to support having a family, it's too late.
From a historical perspective, child labor is no longer a factor for most households, unlike in the days of the family farm when children were inexpensive labor. You / the comments address lower mortality rates, and perhaps households are slow to adjust, but with better nutrition, better sanitation, vaccinations and antipyretics/antibiotics [probably in that order of importance] that's now ancient history. Today the driving factor is target family size.
'Why are fertility rates not rising?' is one question but I think 'why would you expect fertility rates to rise in a developed/rich economy?' is worth asking - given that evidence at a global level (eg https://www.gapminder.org/topics/babies-per-woman/) suggests that as women gain access to education and contraception/birth control, fertility rates tend to fall.
Urbanisation and female education rates are correlated as well...
I guess I assume that part of the genetic make up of humans encourages us to have more babies (a genetic tendency to not have babies would naturally not be passed on....) We did not get to 8bn humans by not wanting to have kids.
Lots of reasons for falling birth rates. But I think a big one is the lack of social pressure to get married and have kids these days. Prior to say the 1990's, you were treated as very odd if you did not marry or have kids by say early 30's. You were a weird bachelor or a spinster. There was a lot of family pressure to get married, have kids. But I noticed in my circle of friends and aquaintences, during the 1990's this pressure began to subside. It was OK to be a guy in your 30's 40's just floating around the world, living a permanent youth, not growing up, not maturing, and not getting married or having kids, and nobody cared. Nobody criticized you or labeled you. I'm shocked at the number of friends I have that never married and even more that had no kids. Nieces, nephews, friends kids....are also waiting a LONG time.
Putting in the work to find the right partner, taking the risk to get married, taking the risks and financial obligation to have kids.....takes a lot of effort & faith. People won't do it as much if they are not pressured. Because it is DIFFICULT, RISKY, and SCARY. My parents got married early because there was pressure to do so back in the early 1960's. I'm not sure they would do so if they were born today.
The dramatic fall in organized religion & church attendence has to have a lot to do with it too.
I dont disagree with this - but in place like Japan or Korea the pressure to get married and have kids has remained pretty strong, and fertility has collapsed. On the other hand, in Israel, there is a strong social pressure to have kids, and they have a high fertility rate. Israeli government has helped with a very supportive medical system as well
Where do you get your stats from? Do you collate them from different sources for each article or do you use one or two services for all of them.
Check out the latest information on GLP-1 agonist drugs like Ozempic/Wegovy and obesity. There is some very interesting information on what causes obesity, mainly the breaking of the brain/gut connection that creates satiety. Once a person becomes obese they are always hungry, so even if they go on a diet and lose a bunch of weight they will continue to not feel satiated, which in turn makes them overeat and regain the weight.
Different sources generally - although I do use the Economist, IMF, World Bank and BIS alot - as well as Bloomberg.
Yes the weight loss drugs are very interesting. But will they just stop us over eating calories? Or are we really lacking macronutrients? Ozempic wont help with that - as its a food supply issue...
It does help with that. Your book is spot on about fast absorbing foods not helping with micronutrient absorption. Ozempic slows down digestion. It is NOT an appetite suppressant. It is actually the molecule that creates satiety. So a person feels satiated when they eat the right foods. I have been on it for 2 years now, and I actually eat more than I did before it took it. It just keeps me away from too much processed foods.
Interestingly when I went on it the first couple of months I had cravings for eating salads, fruit and felt like throwing up if there was any processed foods like pizza or Oreos around.
Very interesting! It also seems to be playing out in processed food stocks...
A few of the leading researchers have now discounted urbanization as a factor. Lyman Stone is one and just started a Substack. There appear to be two major drivers based on his research. One is quantifiable and that is lower infant mortality rates. People used to overshoot thinking a kid or two would die. Now they don’t worry about it and tend to undershoot. The second is amorphous. He calls it culture but it’s really preference of how many kids you want to have. None of the other factors seemed to explain it: https://lymanstone.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web. It’s interesting work.
Really interesting here. One other thing to remember, especially for someplace like Japan, is that when the population ages enough, the fertility rate will not matter with respect to the future of the population. once the number of potential mothers falls below a certain level, there is no replacement rate that is going to be reached.
regarding your thesis about cities discouraging childbearing, I think there is great truth to that. less space, more expensive and these days, more dangerous environments are not conducive to raising children.
finally, regarding the concept of a new economics, I believe that a key mistake that is made by analysts, at least those seeking answers to the human condition, is the per capita outcome. if GDP is growing more slowly than population (due to immigration like in Canada lately) then the people are worse off. That is the opposite of the goals typically espoused.
I would be very interested to see if GDP data were recalculated as Y = C + I + NX only. after all, G, when spent, winds up in one of the other buckets so arguably double counts. rather, a better measure is what the private sector creates and spends and invests, as that is the only place that an economy can beneficially move forward.
Falling population is not a "crisis". Peaking of global population circa 2050 is one of the few hopes for a sustainable future for humanity. Of course the present economic models, e.g. capitalism, that depend on endless growth will probably not work with dramatically declining populations so new economic models will have to be found.
Some thing climate change is a crisis, some dont. Some think unfunded pensions are a crisis, some dont. Some thing immigration is a crisis, some dont. Crisis is in the eye of the beholder - or more accurately, the eye of the voter, and whether politicians do anything about it. In this case - the political winds point to it being seen as a crisis
Pfas, micro-plastics, lead, mercury.
Have you heard of the 'mouse utopia' experiment (https://youtu.be/NgGLFozNM2o?si=FU0q_6KSdUjH6etq)? Mice were given all the food and water they needed and reproduced until they become limited by space. The population ultimately collapsed due to societal break down. It definitely lent weight to the urbanization argument.
We have populated to the available space? There could well be something to that
There’s not much data to support yet I don’t think but since the covid shots miscarriages are more common as stated by doctors and nurses. Quick search on x for stories. Yes anecdotal. Lots of women say their cycle has been disrupted or other issues related. This is a nail in coffin imo
Overlooking the elephant in the room: the slow but certain sterilization effect of non-ionizing radiation. Nobody wants it to be true, so it's just ignored.
The last time I looked teenage pregnancy rates have continued falling. It all started with the introduction of the mobile phone. It would tie in with your modern life argument.
Teenage pregnancy started dropping in the 1980s I think and has continued. We have seen the rise of the over 40 pregnancy, but not enough to offset this trend...