Gross Domestic Product is the metric most economists use to measure national financial health. It is an aggregated number, pulling all of a nation’s generated revenue into one statistic, where annualized growth is the exemplar of economic success. Excessive wealth at the top with massive contraction below can still generate a positive GDP measurement and reflect growth, rendering the metric a questionable measure of true overall financial health. Generally, “growth” is the underlying driver of economic success to most economists. But growth seems likewise to be driven by greater levels of consumption of resources (some not replenishable) and increases in consumers and productive workers (read: population growth). And if population stabilizes or declines, perhaps our entire notion of economic success is simply going to have to eschew growth as a relevant driving metric.
Simply, are these metrics of success outmoded in a world of Malthusian population growth (or not; see below), devastating environmental damage from associated pollution and resulting climate change and a roiling sea of sequential epidemics and pandemics impacting human health in ever corner of the world? If Earth currently holds an unsustainable number of people; optimistic views place the number of people currently alive at double what the planet can absorb and hold comfortably. The novel coronavirus seems like one more attempt by nature to “cull the herd.” But there are other signs reversing the current population explosion.
Environmental changes reflect depleting agricultural resources. For major developed societies, the cost of living is skyrocketing, making having children an expensive proposition, and the cost of housing in those higher-income nations is putting a lid on the space needed to accommodate more babies. Housing everywhere is getting pricey. In agrarian societies, having children meant labor for the fields. In some societies, having children added to the family labor pool needed to provide economic support. But the biggest factor just might an explosion of women into the work force, many having dramatically time-consuming careers at rapidly rising levels of pay and responsibility. They just do not have the same commitment to having children.
But dwindling agricultural resources, global conflicts inflicting dire casualties and exploding poverty and starvation and these horrific epidemics and pandemics (SARS, MERS, Ebola, new strains of malaria and dengue fever and the novel coronavirus pandemic) have also aggregated to suppress population growth even in regions with traditionally high birth rates. Is this just another way for nature to “cull the herd”? The numbers of plunging birth rates, all over the world, are stunning.
So, let’s start with a basic statistical reality: a population remains exactly constant based on an average of 2.1 live births per adult woman. Higher than that and you have natural population growth. Below that number and you have population contraction. While the contraction is greatest in developed nations, we have witnessed a recent reversal in the global trend toward population growth: “Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century… And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100… Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born… The number of over 80-year-olds will soar from 141 million in 2017 to 866 million in 2100.” BBC.com, July 15th.
Where the population is aging most rapidly, Western Europe and Japan, this means that fewer working adults will be effectively supporting an increasing number of aging retirees (or those simply no longer able to work). Add any increase in life expectancy, and the problem is simply compounded. With the economic disruption and job displacement from man-made causes (conflict, AI-driven automation and robotics) and environmental realities (climate change and pollution), the pressure on younger workers is amplified. Japan is experimenting with geriatric robots (“carebots” as pictured above) to care for the aging and is just beginning to rethink its highly limited immigration policy. Times have changed dramatically since World War II.
“In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime… Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the [medical periodical] Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100…
“Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century… Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe…. They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve… China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place… The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.” BBC.com.
But for immigration, which the Trump administration seems hell-bent on stopping, the U.S. population growth would have already begun to contract. Within our country, some of the lowest birthrates are among traditional white women. Assuming that immigration returns to normal levels, “The U.S. is projected to have population growth until just after midcentury (364 million people in 2062), followed by a decline of less than 10% to 336 million by 2100, according to the [Lancet] study... The total U.S. fertility rate – which represents the average number of children a woman delivers over her lifetime – is predicted to steadily decline from 1.8 in 2017 to 1.5 in 2100…
“By 2100, the U.S. is predicted to have the fourth-largest working-age population in the world (around 181 million), after India, Nigeria and China – and immigration will likely sustain the U.S. workforce. However, the researchers warn that U.S. immigration policies have faced a political backlash in recent years, threatening the country's potential to sustain population and economic growth.
“Worldwide, improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, according to the study. World population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 – about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.” USA Today, July 14th. What to do?
“Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates… However, this stops being the answer once nearly every country's population is shrinking… ‘We will go from the period where it's a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won't be enough,’ argues Prof [Christopher] Murray.
“Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer… Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the ‘baby bust’ have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.
“Prof Murray says: "I find people laugh it off; they can't imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids… If you can't [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that's a few centuries away.’
“The researchers warn against undoing the progress on women's education and access to contraception… Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: ‘Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women's reproductive health or progress on women's rights.’” BBC.com. We’re so used to building social and economic models on growth statistics, but that is about to change. Childcare just might become one of the hottest issues in the coming decades.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment