What happens as we see a first world country's demographic crisis

[rousseau]

The reality is that most people do want children, and they'll have as many as they can afford.

The 1960s called; They want their unfounded assumption back.

The reality is that most people want sex, and they'll have as many children as they want, plus a random number implied by the quality of contraception available.

When the quality of available contraception becomes sufficiently high, we observe that women, on average, choose to have fewer than two children, regardless of their level of wealth. So while most people probably do want children, the average size of that want, globally, is somewhat less than two.

There are, of course, plenty of individual exceptions, and plenty of local exceptions too, due to random variations in personal preference, and/or the use of large families as symbols of religious belief, wealth, or social status, for example.

Where having children is particularly expensive and family size is easily managed, you would expect to see some people having larger families as a way of advertising their wealth. Your membership of such a sub-set of humanity is not, however, evidence of its universality; And the global birth rate numbers demonstrate that it's not, currently, a global circumstance.

My 'membership' is a part of the exact wealthy nations that we're discussing, so I think it's fair to extrapolate that experience to the scope of this discussion. I doubt that people have more children to flaunt wealth, they have more children because they want more children and can afford them. But you don't often see anyone go beyond four unless they live on a farm, because of space constraints.

You'll get no argument from me on contraception, but cost of living is most definitely a massive (massive) factor for my generation. For us, it's not just a matter of having grit and toughing it out, it, it's a matter of not starving or ending up homeless in old age.

We're working in precarious jobs, with poor salaries, can barely afford housing, pensions no longer exist, most of our parents can barely help, we have student debt. Kids? lol. It's not just a matter of us having the preference of 2, it's a matter of many of us only being able to afford 1, or 0. Mostly 0.

 

[lostone]

Jobs have been precarious for a long time, Most of us struggle to work until retirement age, even those of us who have special skills and higher level degrees, under constant threat of losing our jobs to younger cheaper employees., in hopes that we can last long enough to retire at the usual age. I was able to retire comfortably, albeit both I an my wife were more or less forced into retirement. At least we both survived in the job market until we were 65. I know of PHDs in our family, in STEM disciplines, who failed to gain tenure and were more of less forced into retirement. My son, 53, is facing a similar struggle, under even more difficult circumstances.

 

[rousseau]

The most successful people I know typically have more than one degree, are in the IT or healthcare industry, or a skilled trade. That's a small minority. I've been very fortunate as I was built to be a software developer, and it's a lucrative career. I have two degrees and a software diploma, and yet still make less than my dad did who only had a high school education. He also entered the workforce ten years earlier than I did.

I'm a member of reddit and follow young people in my community, and the impression I get is that many of them struggle just to find work, any work. And when they do find a job they're making very little money. Most of the people I know making at least decent money have a degree or are in a trade.

 

[lostone]

The most successful people I know typically have more than one degree, are in the IT or healthcare industry, or a skilled trade. That's a small minority. I've been very fortunate as I was built to be a software developer, and it's a lucrative career. I have two degrees and a software diploma, and yet still make less than my dad did who only had a high school education. He also entered the workforce ten years earlier than I did.

I'm a member of reddit and follow young people in my community, and the impression I get is that many of them struggle just to find work, any work. And when they do find a job they're making very little money. Most of the people I know making at least decent money have a degree or are in a trade.

My son has two degrees and is in the IT business, just as I once was. My wife was in the health industry and had MS in Human Resources. Our son makes less than either of us did. Being well trained does not diminish the problem.

From what I read, the problems is that there are an excess of well educated workers and not enough jobs for them. My readings tell me that after the Black Death circa 1348, there were too few workers for too many jobs, and the economic conditions of the peasants improved so much that the they revolted and the Upper classes had to take drastic steps to put down the revolts and still retain workers.

I suspect that kids in their 20s have an even harder time finding work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is true. We live in an era in which each generation has seen their expectations lowered, since 1980 or so. All the wealth generated by our technological advances and increased productivity has flowed into the coffers of those who are already wealthy and who rule industry. OTOH, Marxism has also proven to be a failure for the same reasons.

I'm not at all convinced of this. Rather, I think expectations have risen faster than people's standard of living has increased.

I'm comparing growing up (degreed parents) vs what degreed people have now--and they're a lot better off now.

 

[Derec]

Japan is a unique case because they're not a fan of foreigners. In Canada we have the same problem but there's been a big immigration push, which is mitigating the effect.

It's interesting to watch here as we become even more multi-cultural.

Yeah, a country losing its identity is very "interesting". Like that Chinese curse.
It is Muslims that have the highest birth rates. Canada loves to import them almost as much as Europe. Hell, Canadian government even gave $10M to the Islamic terrorist Omar Khadr who is part of the Khadr family of Islamic terrorists originally and foolishly let into the country by Trudeau's father.

Immigration is not always a net benefit for a society. It really depends on who the immigrants are.
A country should strive for a stable population. Culturally and societally, propping up falling population numbers with foreigners is not a sustainable strategy.

 

[Elixir]

I find it interesting that every demographic change is viewed as a crisis. But only by conservatives.
Is it really an obligate “CRISIS”? And is it really only conservatives who think so?

 

[bilby]

I find it interesting that every demographic change is viewed as a crisis. But only by conservatives.
Is it really an obligate “CRISIS”? And is it really only conservatives who think so?

The assumption that all change is (at least probably) a disaster is the very essence of conservatism.

If we end up with too many old people who have no children to care for them in their dotage, then it will fall to our wider society (ie. Government, via taxation of the public) to step up and fulfil that role.

To a political Conservative, that's absolutely a crisis. It's one thing to be personally dependent upon a government funded by general taxation, who almost invisibly provide all the infrastructure needed for you to become an entirely self-made man; But to accept that a large fraction of people who aren't even of one's own social class might become dependent on taxes you are contributing to, well, that doesn't bear contemplating.

 

[Tigers!]

I find it interesting that every demographic change is viewed as a crisis. But only by conservatives.
Is it really an obligate “CRISIS”? And is it really only conservatives who think so?

Not just "conservatives" think so
CCCP members to have more children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

I vaguely remember reading about the early Soviet Union's attempt to keep up the birth rate but cannot find a reference to it.

 

[bilby]

I find it interesting that every demographic change is viewed as a crisis. But only by conservatives.
Is it really an obligate “CRISIS”? And is it really only conservatives who think so?

Not just "conservatives" think so
CCCP members to have more children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

I vaguely remember reading about the early Soviet Union's attempt to keep up the birth rate but cannot find a reference to it.

The Soviet Union may not have been Conservative, but it was very strongly conservative.

Conservative are generally also conservative; But they don't have a monopoly on it. Any organisation or individual that is opposed to change is conservative. Conservatives are generally opposed to change, and hence are conservative, but they are also opposed to taxation, collectivism, and egalitarianism, and will tolerate a modicum of change in order to reduce these things.

 

[Elixir]

can you demonstrate the mechanism by which the wealth of a nation leads to a lower birthrate, if not by making childcare costs much more expensive?

Can’t demonstrate, but can certainly surmise.
Maybe wealthy people don’t need kids to take care of them in their old age.
Maybe the huge number of recreational, travel and entertainment options available to wealthy people makes them less eager to indulge in child-rearing.
Maybe wealthy people are more likely to have quality education and awareness that lotsa kids is not a good idea for the future of humanity and the planet we’re stuck on.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[Tigers!]

Conservative are generally also conservative; But they don't have a monopoly on it. Any organisation or individual that is opposed to change is conservative. Conservatives are generally opposed to wary of change, and hence are conservative, but they are also opposed to taxation, collectivism, and egalitarianism, and will tolerate a modicum of change in order to reduce these things.

FIFY.
The portions underlined are a puzzle to me. I have never met a conservative opposed to these things. Might disagree with the levels though. You must introduce me to these conservatives you have met. I'd love to talk with them.
You might be confusing some conservatives with populists. Its easy enough to do. At 10,000 ft conservatives and populists can look remarkably alike but up close the differences are obvious.

It's a funny world. Even progressives can be conservatives. The change is abortion rules in the US has shown that many progressives are conservatives when it suits them.

 

[Elixir]

The change is abortion rules in the US has shown that many progressives are conservatives when it suits them.

What change? You mean the Dobbs case?
Painting progressives as conservative for wanting to preserve women right to control their own reproductive system is hardly “conservative”. You might as well paint everyone as a conservative, for wanting to “conserve” their ability to breathe air.
Your attempt to render the term meaningless, is noted.
No blame in that, just pointing out the tacit agreement that “conservatism” is bad.

 

[bilby]

The portions underlined are a puzzle to me. I have never met a conservative opposed to these things.

I didn't say that conservatives were opposed to those things; I explicitly said that it's Conservatives who oppose them.

As to whether conservatives are wary of change, or are opposed to it, this strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

People oppose political actions about which they are wary, and are wary of politicians who propose actions which they oppose. Same same.

 

[Tigers!]

The portions underlined are a puzzle to me. I have never met a conservative opposed to these things.

I didn't say that conservatives were opposed to those things; I explicitly said that it's Conservatives who oppose them.

I am surprised that a capital 'C' can make sure a difference. Conservative vs. conservative?

As to whether conservatives are wary of change, or are opposed to it, this strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

I am surprised that you do not know the difference between wary and opposed.

People oppose political actions about which they are wary, and are wary of politicians who propose actions which they oppose. Same same.

We might be heading into Humpty-Dumpty land now.

 

[Tigers!]

The change is abortion rules in the US has shown that many progressives are conservatives when it suits them.

What change? You mean the Dobbs case?
Painting progressives as conservative for wanting to preserve women right to control their own reproductive system is hardly “conservative”. You might as well paint everyone as a conservative, for wanting to “conserve” their ability to breathe air.
Your attempt to render the term meaningless, is noted.

Based upon Bilby's definition of (C)conservative - "Conservatives are generally opposed to change, and hence are conservative" then if changes in a law, in this case abortion, are applied and you are opposed to that change then you are a conservative. You wish to maintain the status quo. That is what a conservative does according to the Bilby.

No blame in that, just pointing out the tacit agreement that “conservatism” is bad.

I am pleased that you think we are in tacit agreement that "conservatism" is bad.

 

[TomC]

"Conservatives are generally opposed to change, and hence are conservative" then if changes in a law, in this case abortion, are applied and you are opposed to that change then you are a conservative.

Bingo.

"I want U.S. abortion laws to remain the way they've been since my grandma was born 50 years ago." is inherently conservative.
Tom

 

[bilby]

I am surprised that a capital 'C' can make sure a difference. Conservative vs. conservative?

That's English for you. Crazy language.

 

[bilby]

Based upon Bilby's definition of (C)conservative - "Conservatives are generally opposed to change, and hence are conservative" then if changes in a law, in this case abortion, are applied and you are opposed to that change then you are a conservative. You wish to maintain the status quo. That is what a conservative does according to the Bilby.

I didn't give a definition of "(C)conservative"; indeed I have no clue what that might mean.

I gave a definition of "conservative", which is the condition of wishing to keep (ie conserve) a current or recent state of affairs; And I gave a subsequent definition of "Conservative", which is a proper noun describing people of a particular political philosophy.

Here's that definition again:

Conservatives are generally opposed to change, and hence are conservative.

As always, generalisations are not universal; Some minority of Conservatives are quite happy to embrace change. But they're atypical. Most Conservatives are also conservative. The reverse is generally less true; Many people who are very definitely not Conservative are, nonetheless very conservative.

 

[BH]

I manage a retail store for a living and have done retail work for most of my work life besides a short stint in the lawncare business and school teaching. Most months I am still able to put some money into savings. Never married or had kids and my degree is a bachelor's in history plus a year of grad school. Live in an older but decent efficiency apartment but can comfortably furnish and maintain it. One thing that keeps me afloat is I won't go into debt for anything other than a car and I live below what I can afford. When I buy I buy good quality things like furniture and take care of it. Make sure I keep things like health insurance, ect. up to date. The economy has been in practical decline all my life (born in the mid 70s) so I simply don't have high expectations that can't be delivered. I didn't do anything wrong or bad I have just done as well as I can with what I got. No one wronged me, but I wasn't lazy or not hardworking either. Gone are the days when you can make a hundred grand a year as a department manager at Sears or buy a home on a salespersons pay. The fact so much industry left the country deflated the retail wages lower than what they were years ago.