population decline

[HamsterHookah 112]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Growth for growth's sake is ridiculous. Judging everything by GDP is equally ridiculous. If there are enough people to make a country successful, why do we need more? Population growth since the advent of modern medicine is fine, but ultimately unsustainable. We're also not an agrarian society anymore, you don't need 8 kids to help work the farm. With respect to automation, John Maynard Keyes speculated that we'd all work 15 hour work weeks and live comfortable lives with plenty of time for leisure. Of course he failed to account for greed and that the people at the top would rake in all of the profits from automation and tell everyone else to fuck off, and certainly could not have predicted that people would be so utterly stupid in the future that they would vote for people promoting this upward redistribution of wealth. Our species has failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics

I assume you read the article you posted, but this seems pretty spot-on, even if it's 15 years old (truth is timeless, after all), which implies that working a 15 hour week or semi-retirement hours is probably not fulfilling to human beings:

Quote

 

One possible explanation is that many of us actually enjoy work, despite what we say to pollsters and to each other. To be sure, work can be boring, repetitive or exhausting, but it is also an arena where people get pleasure out of their achievements and enjoy mixing with other people.

Gary Becker says Keynes based his predictions on the behaviour of the rich gentry of Britain, who tended to hold their wealth in the form of land, property or financial assets. When the value of these assets rose, they could earn the same income by working less hard. Wealth creation in the modern world, by contrast, has more to do with the use of human capital, and there is a price - lower earnings - when that human capital is left idle. Becker says that rich individuals in the Gulf states, who live off revenues from oil, are the only group that conforms to Keynes's ideal of a 15-hour working week. Imported labourers, who do not share in the oil wealth, work much longer hours.

 

 

['stache 21816]

20 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

I assume you read the article you posted, but this seems pretty spot-on, even if it's 15 years old (truth is timeless, after all), which implies that working a 15 hour week or semi-retirement hours is probably not fulfilling to human beings:

 

Yes, although I've done more reading from more direct sources, not this article necessarily which I pulled up quickly on Google. I'm focused on the economics, not the sociology. His prediction was that people who not be required to work more than 15 hours a week, and could pursue other fulfilling activities without the stress of needing to work to meet bare minimum survivability standards. The number was probably off, but it was an economic thought experiment. It's not like the alternative is sitting around binging Netflix all day every day. I for one would pursue areas of interest that are not necessarily lucrative financially. And even recognizing wealth disparities in the past, his work was during an age where that was lessening, and instead it's turned back to upward redistribution. I doubt he would have ever predicted that people in the world's lone super power would be working 80 hours a week and still struggling to feed their families. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Yes, although I've done more reading from more direct sources, not this article necessarily which I pulled up quickly on Google. I'm focused on the economics, not the sociology. His prediction was that people who not be required to work more than 15 hours a week, and could pursue other fulfilling activities without the stress of needing to work to meet bare minimum survivability standards. The number was probably off, but it was an economic thought experiment. It's not like the alternative is sitting around binging Netflix all day every day. I for one would pursue areas of interest that are not necessarily lucrative financially. And even recognizing wealth disparities in the past, his work was during an age where that was lessening, and instead it's turned back to upward redistribution. I doubt he would have ever predicted that people in the world's lone super power would be working 80 hours a week and still struggling to feed their families. 

Probably, because as yourself stated, he wasn't looking at the entire problem in a holistic way (which is to say, economics + sociology/psychology). Talking about anything number driven (economics, data modeling, forecasting) without adding in the human judgment impacts is a worthless exercise in my opinion.

Your article does a good job of going into the drivers of why people still work their fingers to the bone, the various advances in technology, products and qualities, as well as the innate brokenness of human beings that amplifies greed and selfishness and self-satisfaction. IMO.

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Yes, although I've done more reading from more direct sources, not this article necessarily which I pulled up quickly on Google. I'm focused on the economics, not the sociology. His prediction was that people who not be required to work more than 15 hours a week, and could pursue other fulfilling activities without the stress of needing to work to meet bare minimum survivability standards. The number was probably off, but it was an economic thought experiment. It's not like the alternative is sitting around binging Netflix all day every day. I for one would pursue areas of interest that are not necessarily lucrative financially. And even recognizing wealth disparities in the past, his work was during an age where that was lessening, and instead it's turned back to upward redistribution. I doubt he would have ever predicted that people in the world's lone super power would be working 80 hours a week and still struggling to feed their families. 

Interesting read on the topic from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/business/dealbook/demographic-crisis.html

 

Today’s 5-year-olds have it even better than you think.

In the wealthiest nations, more than half of these tykes will live to at least 100, the Stanford Center on Longevity expects.

But a society full of centenarians poses a profound challenge for the world’s advanced economies and many of its companies: How do you adapt to an older world and pay for the inevitable pension time bomb ticking in the background as this super-ager cohort approaches retirement age?

As the Stanford center puts it: “The 100-year life is here. We’re not ready.”

The real-world effect of the worries about the long-life paradox were on full display this week: In France, nationwide strikes and protests brought the country to a standstill at the government’s deeply unpopular attempt to reform pension rules; in China, authorities reported that the population was falling for the first time in six decades; and at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, business leaders and policymakers grappled with the consequences of this demographic conundrum.

The ticking time bomb

In France (life expectancy: 82), workers and students took to the streets to protest President Emmanuel Macron’s push to overhaul the pension system and raise the minimum retirement age to 64 from 62 by 2030, an attempt to tame the country’s ballooning social welfare costs. (In the United States, where the life expectancy is 77, the typical retirement age is 67, but workers as young as 62 can begin collecting Social Security benefits.)

France spends just over 14 percent of its GDP on pensions, one of the highest rates among the group of rich countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “We need to work more,” Macron said in a New Year’s address, to “pass on to our children a fair and durable social model, because it will be credible and financed in the long term.”

The situation is more grim in China (life expectancy: 78), which is confronting a shrinking population. One reason: It costs more to raise a child in parts of China than it does in the United States, a reality that’s pushing families and professional women to choose not to have children (despite a number of government inducements to get them to do so). The not-too-distant impact: a shortage of workers could imperil economic growth and torpedo Beijing’s ability to raise sufficient funding through taxation of the younger, working population to support the biggest population of pensioners on the planet.

and

At the World Economic Forum, organizers tried their best to change the gloomy Malthusian narrative about aging. Talk of time bombs or a “silver tsunami” were out, replaced by high-level discussions on what the forum calls the “longevity economy.” A central theme: If we’re expected to live longer, we’re going to have to adjust some life goals and work longer, too.

Edited January 25, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

China also have unique cultural norms where everyone looks to retire between 55-60 with some women retiring at 50.  The Economist says the average is 54. It's not because they've banked 30 years of expenses but rather they've met their working expectation and then these "old" folks look to their one adult child and that child's spouse to take care of them, if necessary.

It's not hard to project these numbers forward where a single grandchild might looked upon culturally to support their parents and even their grandparents.

However if you force or require a higher retirement age, then you also create bottlenecks in the workplace in terms of advancement, promotion and new hires. This is why France is mad about the increased retirement age.

 

[Macanudo 12979]

2 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

It feels like a failure when the cornerstone of our entire economic and social strategy is dependent on population growth and scaling human beings.

It would be like if a business never actually had a plan to be profitable and responsible but instead just projected out unlimited user-growth to sustain their spend and investments and market share.

It's not sustainable, in both the general and ESG use of the term.

Our economy is based on enough consumers buying enough shit.   Look at Christimas.    It's an economic event that determines many of the decisions made by companies across the spectrum.   It's not just the gift but the material for the item, the tranportation, etc.   It's all about the mighty dollar.    

[atomheartbevo 89675]

6 hours ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

"extremely insular" is a euphemism for xenophobia, avoiding the mongrels (blacks/browns) or their historical enemies (Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos).  They don't even like white guys doing their comfort women.   Immigration is not going to happen to any substantial level and I really don't blame them honestly, their culture has been bastardized by the west, but they do have power to keep their gene pool traditional Japanese. 

I was trying to be polite, but yeah, they've got some serious problems with foreigners, and it goes back centuries.  I get why they are the way that they are, when you go back and study the past few centuries.

[Texas Jeff 1945]

I read a book on this recently, I think it was Empty Planet.

The authors talked about most countries being on the same curve.  Once women are educated, have birth control, and are reasonably assured that kids they do have will survive childhood, reproductive rates go below replacement value and population declines.  Some countries are ahead of others on the curve, but almost all countries are headed towards lower birth rates and eventual population decline.

I don't see fewer people as a bad thing, to be honest.  Less stress on the planet.  We need to figure out how to handle old people without overburdening young people.  If we really want more people we need to be nicer to those of us who can create more of us.

[Texas Jeff 1945]

11 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

In the wealthiest nations, more than half of these tykes will live to at least 100, the Stanford Center on Longevity expects.

Future Aggie alums are going to have to live with disappointment for a long, long time.

[Macanudo 12979]

8 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

I read a book on this recently, I think it was Empty Planet.

The authors talked about most countries being on the same curve.  Once women are educated, have birth control, and are reasonably assured that kids they do have will survive childhood, reproductive rates go below replacement value and population declines.  Some countries are ahead of others on the curve, but almost all countries are headed towards lower birth rates and eventual population decline.

I don't see fewer people as a bad thing, to be honest.  Less stress on the planet.  We need to figure out how to handle old people without overburdening young people.  If we really want more people we need to be nicer to those of us who can create more of us.

Bring on Carousel and the Sandmen.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

11 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

I read a book on this recently, I think it was Empty Planet.

The authors talked about most countries being on the same curve.  Once women are educated, have birth control, and are reasonably assured that kids they do have will survive childhood, reproductive rates go below replacement value and population declines.  Some countries are ahead of others on the curve, but almost all countries are headed towards lower birth rates and eventual population decline.

I don't see fewer people as a bad thing, to be honest.  Less stress on the planet.  We need to figure out how to handle old people without overburdening young people.  If we really want more people we need to be nicer to those of us who can create more of us.

Another component is that many women in developed countries do not need men to get by compared to previous generations. Especially as they are earning more and more. Now they want men and children, but some of them also have very high standards that fewer and fewer men can meet.  And since those fewer and fewer men have more options on the dating scene, they have less reasons to settle down. 

[Gatorubet 30241]

BBC just finished an article about South Korea’s birth rate problem.   I see no way they correct it. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:34 AM, 'stache said:

Yes, although I've done more reading from more direct sources, not this article necessarily which I pulled up quickly on Google. I'm focused on the economics, not the sociology. His prediction was that people who not be required to work more than 15 hours a week, and could pursue other fulfilling activities without the stress of needing to work to meet bare minimum survivability standards. The number was probably off, but it was an economic thought experiment. It's not like the alternative is sitting around binging Netflix all day every day. I for one would pursue areas of interest that are not necessarily lucrative financially. And even recognizing wealth disparities in the past, his work was during an age where that was lessening, and instead it's turned back to upward redistribution. I doubt he would have ever predicted that people in the world's lone super power would be working 80 hours a week and still struggling to feed their families. 

Interesting and topical read based off our conversation yesterday, I saw today:

High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

While most U.S. workers are putting in fewer hours, men in the top 10% of earners cut back their time on the job the most, according to a new study:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-earning-men-are-cutting-back-on-their-working-hours-11674697563?

Edited January 26, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[hayden_horn 11362]

41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Another component is that many women in developed countries do not need men to get by compared to previous generations. Especially as they are earning more and more. Now they want men and children, but some of them also have very high standards that fewer and fewer men can meet.  And since those fewer and fewer men have more options on the dating scene, they have less reasons to settle down. 

an enterprising man would see this as an opportunity to get his shit together.

[Brisketexan 105151]

BBC just finished an article about South Korea’s birth rate problem.   I see no way they correct it. 

Weird way to tell us you’re not interested in banging a hot Korean gal, but you do you.

[Gatorubet 30241]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Weird way to tell us you’re not interested in banging a hot Korean gal, but you do you.

Just spitballing here Brisket, but I think it has more to do with hot Korean gals not wanting to bang me.

It is odd, I know, that ancestor worship and fossil fucking should have such a disturbing disconnect.

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

savior of humanity? 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 1/25/2023 at 7:42 AM, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

  I will never buy a vehicle outside of Toyota/Lexus or Honda/Acura, and always look for something made in Japan. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

probably 90% of those cars are made in N. America, not Japan.

 

 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

 

Less people, declining world population (world still has over 1% annual population growth), is a good thing. I don't give a shit about pension bombs or worker shortages or the olds. There are too many people on this earth, full stop.

Japan and S. Korea should be lauded.

 

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

20 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

probably 90% of those cars are made in N. America, not Japan.

 

 

 

 

my current car was made in Japan.  Look for a VIN that begins with J, that is perfection.  It's hard to find that , but worth the effort. 

[Snake Diggity 4625]

For almost every 1st world country outside of the US (who can/will pull the immigration lever to supplement their working age population) and China/Russia (who are proper fucked because of their economic structure and unwillingness to embrace immigration), the next 30 years will be a very risky time as they go through an unprecedented societal experiment.  
 

Can Europe, Japan, S Korea, and Australia maintain their standards of living despite dramatic declines in working age population and economic activity?  That’s something never before seen in human history.

If that’s not possible, can those same countries somehow turnaround the population decline to at least eventually achieve population stability?  Again, never before seen in human history.

There will be a lot it things that can be done in the short term (extending what is defined as “working age”, fully embracing automation and robotics to replace human workers) to stem the tide, but those 2 questions will really determine the next phase of humanity.

One thing that is interesting to me is that of all the books/articles I have read on this topic, none of them predict that the countries who currently project for continued population growth (S America, Africa, India) will rise to the top of world powers as other countries populations collapse.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Snake Diggity

[Celery Man 20961]

20 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

an enterprising man would see this as an opportunity to get his shit together.

flip side - a pathetic loser would see this as a reason to go handmaid's tale

[52-80 19161]

8 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

Can Europe, Japan, S Korea, and Australia maintain their standards of living despite dramatic declines in working age population and economic activity?  That’s something never before seen in human history.

...

One thing that is interesting to me is that of all the books/articles I have read on this topic, none of them predict that the countries who currently project for continued population growth (S America, Africa, India) will rise to the top of world powers as other countries populations collapse.

Yes.  It's pretty easy: continued brain drain.  Keep attracting the best talent out of the worst places and use that to supplant your natural decline.  Some repatriate their money and talent, but most people just stay in their new ecosystem.

What are the wealthiest countries in the world?  Singapore? 40% non-national.  Norway? 1/4th national.  US economy?  heavy lifting from tech and finance by chinese, indians, and jews , whether naturalized or not. 

Result will be same or greater level of global inequality, with a lifting of the baseline economic condition due to advance in technology

[Texzilla58 4738]

China also have unique cultural norms where everyone looks to retire between 55-60 with some women retiring at 50.  The Economist says the average is 54. It's not because they've banked 30 years of expenses but rather they've met their working expectation and then these "old" folks look to their one adult child and that child's spouse to take care of them, if necessary.
It's not hard to project these numbers forward where a single grandchild might looked upon culturally to support their parents and even their grandparents.
However if you force or require a higher retirement age, then you also create bottlenecks in the workplace in terms of advancement, promotion and new hires. This is why France is mad about the increased retirement age.
 

The Chinese are fucked. I have spent lots of time in HK, Shanghai, and other regions and it’s not just that they are on a depopulation curve. They are now a generational nation of only children.

Working with them they are intensely spoiled. A meeting with 30 something’s is like dealing with 7th graders. The men are marginalized as there are 50+ million more of them than women which for the first time has empowered the females for the first time ever. They are intensely picky about male earnings potential. None of them know what a sister, brother, aunt or uncle is. And on the back of that kid wanting to retire aren’t just parents but two sets of grandparents. There not much social safety net.

Also China hasn’t mounted a successful offensive military campaign in a millenia. On one hand youth is not looking for a fight but nationalistic govt and military brass may drive that decision.

And if Russia gets bogged down in Ukraine and pulls troops from Siberia China will try to take it. We should be working with the Vietnamese to rebuild the naval bases at cam Rahn bay and Hanoi with them and leasing Subic Bay from the Philippines.

[Parliament 14260]

I hope this isn't too CR.

Isn't population decline good for Global Warming?  Should GW be part of the discussion?  Not saying i agree with that take.  Just sayin.'

[DaysOff 7951]

Probably, but economy comes first. Capitalist moose out front shoulda told ya.

[tbone_ 14126]

Well depressions aren’t fun. That’s what will probably happen with a declining population.

[TKthunder2 4992]

5 hours ago, Parliament said:

I hope this isn't too CR.

Isn't population decline good for Global Warming?  Should GW be part of the discussion?  Not saying i agree with that take.  Just sayin.'

Social programs and defense spending require an ever increasing population.

You cut social security, Medicare, public education, public works (roads, parks, utilities) down to the bone/privatize and strip the military down to just patrolling our own border and maintaining the nukes and it might be possible. But as none of those will occur in any reasonable amount of time (for better or worse) we have to figure out how to support an aging population while at the same time getting through rising healthcare/education cost and housing/water shortages.

Go us!

[Snake Diggity 4625]

On 1/28/2023 at 6:14 PM, tbone_ said:

Well depressions aren’t fun. That’s what will probably happen with a declining population.

Depressions aren’t a foregone conclusion with declining population.  Avoiding depression requires worker productivity increases to outpace population decline.  There are multiple ways of achieving that but the 3 primary ways are: increasing median education of existing workers, bringing 3rd world workers into the 1st world, and improving technology.  There will almost certainly be some social discomfort related to population decline but I am optimistic the ultimate outcome can be good.

[Parliament 14260]

Fembots.  Fembots will fix it.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

50 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

bringing 3rd world workers into the 1st world,

Isn’t this just saying “Don’t let the population decline”?

[Biff Tannen 45691]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Isn’t this just saying “Don’t let the population decline”?

I take it as, there’s plenty of people in the third world that could be lifted out of poverty and work in the economy instead of being in squalor. 

[Parliament 14260]

So...Mississippi?

[CooterBrown 18014]

 Avoiding depression requires worker productivity increases to outpace population decline.  

With population decline, isn’t the real issue a decrease in demand? Increasing productivity doesn’t matter if demand is also decreasing.

[Parliament 14260]

A decrease in demand, and a shift in demand.  Olds buy depends and commemorative Donald Trump dinner plates or whatever.  Less  stimulating to the economy that the cars and houses bought by the youngs.

[Snake Diggity 4625]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

 

With population decline, isn’t the real issue a decrease in demand? Increasing productivity doesn’t matter if demand is also decreasing.

 

That is definitely a logical theory.  But my hope is that a higher standard of living (I.e. increased consumption per capita) can replace decrease in demand due to population decline.  But that can only happen if it’s coupled with increased worker productivity.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Snake Diggity

[Armybrat 40850]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:26 PM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

probably 90% of those cars are made in N. America, not Japan.

 

 

 

 

Yep, 70% of my wife’s Accord parts were made & assembled in the US, or so it was said five years ago.

 

[Armybrat 40850]

47 minutes ago, Parliament said:

A decrease in demand, and a shift in demand.  Olds buy depends and commemorative Donald Trump dinner plates or whatever.  Less  stimulating to the economy that the cars and houses bought by the youngs.

I buy guns & ammo. 
Mrs.Brat buys shirts made in Guatemala.

But we are gonna buy another Honda car this year. 
Don’t need another house.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:35 AM, Snake Diggity said:

For almost every 1st world country outside of the US (who can/will pull the immigration lever to supplement their working age population) and China/Russia (who are proper fucked because of their economic structure and unwillingness to embrace immigration), the next 30 years will be a very risky time as they go through an unprecedented societal experiment.  
 

Can Europe, Japan, S Korea, and Australia maintain their standards of living despite dramatic declines in working age population and economic activity?  That’s something never before seen in human history.

If that’s not possible, can those same countries somehow turnaround the population decline to at least eventually achieve population stability?  Again, never before seen in human history.

There will be a lot it things that can be done in the short term (extending what is defined as “working age”, fully embracing automation and robotics to replace human workers) to stem the tide, but those 2 questions will really determine the next phase of humanity.

One thing that is interesting to me is that of all the books/articles I have read on this topic, none of them predict that the countries who currently project for continued population growth (S America, Africa, India) will rise to the top of world powers as other countries populations collapse.

The only way you can bring about a repopulation is a religious revival which I find highly unlikely in those countries you are talking about.   The only groups pumping out above replacement level children are evangelical christians, muslims, regularly attending/serious catholics, Hindu's and mormons. The Jews almost get there at like 2.05 kids per lifetime, which is slightly below replacement level of 2.1.  That's the entirety of the list I believe.  Secular humanism or casual and infrequent religiosity doesn't lead people to want to breed in any serious manner.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/gods-little-rabbits-religious-people-out-reproduce-secular-ones-by-a-landslide/

 

I have my suspicions as to whether or not Europe, Japan, S. Korea and Australia can maintain their economic activity and my suspicion is it's a big no. They will counter this decline in economics by inviting the Muslims in and Europe will be a majority Muslim continent by 2100.  No modern and industrialized country can maintain their standard of living on declining populations and it's going to be a brutal awakening for all the Malthusians when the promises of diminishing population and the new Eden it will lead to prove unwarranted and the opposite, in fact, happens.  Or, I'm wrong, Malthus is right for the first time ever and nothing changes.  

I think you are right that it is the fundamental question of our time. I side with Musk that the West is committing slow motion suicide but unlike him I didn't have the courage of that conviction to impregnate many different women and have double digit kids. I did my part to repopulate the world but just barely with 3- then my ass got snipped b/c having kids is hard and raising them is expensive.  Personally, if not for my faith and knowing that having kids is hard I don't think I would have wanted to reproduce, but that's a counterfactual I cannot say for sure with any certainty.  I know my friends and family that aren't regular attenders (most of the people in my circle) are mostly on 0 or 1 baby and I know that the churches I've gone to are never lacking in paying attention to building nursery after nursery.  What's really interesting from the article I quoted is that you can control for all factors and it doesn't matter- you really only need to know religiosity to determine number of baby's.  Anyone here see another great awakening in our future?

 

 

[Wally Fairway 5550]

On 2/5/2023 at 11:23 AM, Parliament said:

A decrease in demand, and a shift in demand.  Olds buy depends and commemorative Donald Trump dinner plates or whatever.  Less  stimulating to the economy that the cars and houses bought by the youngs.

I don't really know how to break this to you, but the economy is really larger than just the US. And the olds transition their spending to health care, prescriptions, and medical devices - and none of that is inexpensive. My Mom is a nursing home and her monthly consumption/spending is higher than it ever was before she didn't know which of her sons I am; and she is one of the lucky ones who can afford it (for now anyway).
Globally there are more people worried about food and water to feed their family next month then there waiting to buy the new iPhone 27 or the Samsung 52. 
Maybe I am like a climate change denier (and I think they are f'ng idiots), but I think the population decline proponents have their own agenda that they are pushing. I have thought for many years that one of the primary causes of human influence on climate change is that the planet struggles to heat, feed, cloth and house 8+ billion. Maybe I am the stooge here, if so just call me Kyrie, and watch me walk off the edge of the planet.

[Schulz2.0 28957]

9 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I don't really know how to break this to you, but the economy is really larger than just the US. And the olds transition their spending to health care, prescriptions, and medical devices - and none of that is inexpensive. My Mom is a nursing home and her monthly consumption/spending is higher than it ever was before she didn't know which of her sons I am; and she is one of the lucky ones who can afford it (for now anyway).
Globally there are more people worried about food and water to feed their family next month then there waiting to buy the new iPhone 27 or the Samsung 52. 
Maybe I am like a climate change denier (and I think they are f'ng idiots), but I think the population decline proponents have their own agenda that they are pushing. I have thought for many years that one of the primary causes of human influence on climate change is that the planet struggles to heat, feed, cloth and house 8+ billion. Maybe I am the stooge here, if so just call me Kyrie, and watch me walk off the edge of the planet.

My parents are retired. They don't spend shit. They basically live off social security and that's it. I'd argue that's the larger scenario that the one you're mom is currently in.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5400]

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

.... The only groups pumping out above replacement level children are evangelical christians, muslims, regularly attending/serious catholics, Hindu's and mormons. The Jews almost get there at like 2.05 kids per lifetime, which is slightly below replacement level of 2.1.  That's the entirety of the list I believe.....

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Mexicans are pumping the babies out as well. 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

8 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

I'm pretty sure that Mexicans are pumping the babies out as well. 

Not actual Mexicans in Mexico.  It's 1.9 per woman and they've been in a baby bust for awhile.  

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

30 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

I'm pretty sure that Mexicans are pumping the babies out as well. 

The ones that are evangelicals or regularly attending Catholics are. Those are most of the Mexicans that are breeding. The secular humanists who have moved behind religion are like every other secular humanist and lagging way behind. 
there are more Mexicans with religiosity than euros or Asians. 

[CooterBrown 18014]

Italy is the most catholic place in the world and they have one of the lowest birth rates. Being religious doesn’t mean shit.

[Armybrat 40850]

35 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Not actual Mexicans in Mexico.  It's 1.9 per woman and they've been in a baby bust for awhile.  

Really? 
Dayyum, things have changed down there in 60 years.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

4 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Italy is the most catholic place in the world and they have one of the lowest birth rates. Being religious doesn’t mean shit.

They are carbolic by heritage not practicing on the younger generation. Read literally any of the articles on the subject and they will literally all say the same thing. The one I quoted was written by a gay atheist evolutionary scientist btw. 
You get the same numbers by a fundy or anyone else. 

[Armybrat 40850]

Y’all better get to fuckin’ then.

[Wally Fairway 5550]

52 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

My parents are retired. They don't spend shit. They basically live off social security and that's it. I'd argue that's the larger scenario that the one you're mom is currently in.

they are both anecdotal, not necessarily indicative - but I will say there a 1,000's of nursing homes all over the country, sure not all are 100% full. And we don't spend more than $100 bucks a month other than the nursing home. 

[Schulz2.0 28957]

12 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Y’all better get to fuckin’ then.

I pay $34000/year for daycare between a 2 and 4 year old. They're too damn expensive.