Stable or been slight declines in fertility do not spell bad economic news if
the population is educated. Productivity growth now comes from maximizing
intellectual capital, not from industrial growth spurred by more and more mouths
People can, and should, have children of their own choice and circumstance, not
for the benefit of the economy, culture, or anything else. Besides, and this is
pretty much always overlooked here, the developed world may see falling
fertility rates but the developing world does not. And a huge portion of
humanity in the developing world is bent on turning itself into the developed
world, with all the associated consumer demands on the planet, in one
generation. This is a fantastic change in the entire nature of human kind that
will put a huge strain on the worlds resources, directly at our expense. And
we're going to have to live with it. Looking at it globally, it looks to me
like bemoaning low birth rates here while the developing world is stepping up
consumption exponentially is short sighted.
The problem here is that the quick-and-dirty way to maintain a society is
growth.But growth at any cost, as preached by Alan Greenspan and Ben
Bernanke, is foolish and unsustainable. You cannot grow 3% per year.But
our politicians and economists love two million immigrants a year because it
solves a problem for them. The influx of new faces rings the register at Wmart,
provides buyers for our old cars and renters for our income property.Pay
no attention to the byproducts of importing high school dropouts from the third
world.The elites are trying to save us from ourselves. I wish they'd
keep their hands off.
To "Irony Guy" actually it does result in economic problems. The
problems are not seen immediately, but are delayed by about 20 years or so.
Just look at the welfare and entitlement programs that we have in the US. How
do we maintain those?For example, when Social Security was first
established families averaged 4 to 6 kids, average lifespan was 65 years old.
There were many workers per retired person. Now there are just a few workers
per retired person, and people are retired for a decade or more.Without shifting much of the burden to the young and working, you can't
maintain those retired people. When you shift the burden to the young, you
reduce their buying power which means that they make fewer purchases.In effect you slow the economy by having to increase taxes.
Let's see. DN wants to see greater population growth. But it also opposes
an increase in the minimum wage. Is it possible these two goals conflict? Has
anyone measured the fertility rate of millionaires?
I would argue that it is not correct to say that having fewer children results
in better investment into each. We have 8 children with 9th on the way. If we
were to send any of them back, it would be a minus, we would be like a guitar
that is missing a string. The "experts" that frequently have no children
of their own just do not get it. The child does not progress just from the
parents' input. Rather, it is more like the parents directing the orchestra
with the children nourishing each other under the supervision of the parents.
Each child is essential for helping his siblings develop. It appears that the
farmers in Idaho understand this better than child psychologists in New York.
Wondering if this LDS owned newspaper is grasping this because of what the
Mormon Church has always promoted.For centuries, Mormons have been advised
by their leaders, in several different ways, to "go out and replenish the
earth".Families do not live as they did in the past. Most people who
were farmers, have sold their land, and moved on to different careers and
lifestyles. "Many hands" were needed to make a farm work, not to
mention, bring a profit.DuPonts, Rockefellers, Kennedys, had means to
raise large families that others were not privy to.Once open a time it may
have been lovely idea to have a large family. However, now it is very cost
prohibitive, and other ways impossible for most of our American and world
Population growth tends to fall when women have control over their reproductive
choices. Women in the wealthier nations have had rights to contraception for
only a few decades now: the same rights will eventually be available in the
planet's developing countries. And none too soon.Many are
worried about the economic impacts of zero population growth and the resulting
aging population, but what about the economic impacts of shortages of resources?