Fear of economic blow as births drop around world

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • David Centerville, UT
    May 8, 2014 2:17 p.m.


    You are correct. We shouldn't push more children in order to sustain social programs such as social security. But as birth rates drop we must adjust the formulas and benefits that are currently part of these programs. Social Security is not self-sustaining, but is dependent upon a ratio of payers to offset the receivers. That ratio is quite different now compared to when the program was started.

    Regarding the unemployed, that is a direct result of failed economic and political policies. There is a tremendous amount of work, and critical decisions that need to be made to return our economy to one of strength. Voters must educate themselves and vote wisely. A recent report states that for the first time ever in our history, small businesses are failing faster than entrepreneurs are creating them. Current policies are hurting employment efforts, not helping.

    I am convinced that there are enough resources in the world. They just need to be managed wisely, and we need technologies (current and yet to be discovered) to aid us in the use of resources. I don't believe we need to encourage restriction of birth rates.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 8, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    I don't get the statement that as baby boomers retire, there are not enough workers to replace them. Why then the high unemployment? How about all those college graduates who are unable to find work? We seem to have an oversupply of educated and skilled individuals who are having difficulty finding jobs. You would think that the attrition of older workers into retirement would be a good thing that opens up opportunities for younger workers.
    Also, population growth just to sustain some economic growth will lead eventually to a real economic disaster when resources are depleted and food production can not keep up with demand. There are ways we can adjust to slower population growth. There is nothing that can be done when our earth's resources can no longer sustain an even greater overpopulation of consumers.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    May 7, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    Those who think this is "good news" don't understand the long term soci0-economic impact it will have. The people who are pulling back are the people who have to pay for it themselves. That means you will have more people from low income families that will continue to have babies. Not to say that a baby from a low income family can't grow up and pull themselves out of poverty. The odds are just against them. It will mean that the demographics of the future workforce will be skewed.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    May 7, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    The Social Security formula should have been adjusted decades ago. Politicians won't touch it because it means higher SS taxes. Now that the situation is worse, they are less likely to do anything.

  • David Centerville, UT
    May 7, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Given the fact that birth rates are dropping it would be wise for politicians to adjust the formula for social security and other programs that depend upon population/demographic ratios. When SS first launched wasn't there 6 payers for each receiver, but now we are down to 2:1?

    I would recognize the realities of decreasing birth rates and adjust SS and other programs. But I would also preach to not fear the future. Families are divinely ordained of God as the classroom for raising children. Each couple must reflect and decide upon whether they will have children and how many, but we shouldn't fear the future. We can be wise without fear. I believe there is enough resources in the world if we are wise stewards with them and we allow free markets to create better technologies to maximize and expand those resources (we get better crop yields now than we did 100 years ago, for example).

  • James E Tooele, UT
    May 7, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Keep in mind that Social Security, Medicaid/care, Obamacare subsidies and other welfare programs are paid with current receipts, not some mythical investment fund or "lock box". If later generations are smaller than earlier ones, the inverted pyramid cannot support these programs.
    Raise your hand if you think our current crop of politicians will take charge of this looming disaster...anyone? Anyone? No...

  • ODannyBoy Sandy, Utah
    May 7, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    I also see this as good news. The history of at least the past few centuries of mankind has been based on unrestricted growth. Generally, we have had corresponding room and resources to allow that growth. But new territories and the undiscovered resources are finite, and becoming noticeably limited. We can no longer just "move west", or sail to a new continent. Basics - like water, are becoming more scarce; we are running out of room to build new communities, turning farmland into subdivisions.
    It behooves us to educate our youth to be more productive; to employ and use the talents of our aging population much longer; we can and must adapt our economies to depend less on high growth and more on productivity and developing new innovative products and services.
    Doing it "because we always have done it that way" won't work - ask the buggy whip industry.

  • Z South Jordan, UT
    May 7, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    @Spangs, which part of this, exactly, do you consider this to be 'great news'? Social instability? Not enough workers to support the social contracts I assume you hold so dear? Continued economic contraction?

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    Great news!