Do We Need To Have More Children?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
Economists can't seem to decide if we need more or fewer children? Does overpopulation drain Earth's resources too much or does an ageing population threaten economies? What challenges does either option present and can we solve this paradox?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Economic Explained team uses Statista for conducting our research. Check out their UA-cam channel: / @statistaofficial
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
Check out our second channel Economics Explained Essentials → / @economicsexplainedess...
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 open.spotify.c...
Also on Apple Podcasts or anywhere else you listen!
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsexplained
TikTok → / economicsexplained
#EconomicsExplained #Overpopulation #PopulationCollapse
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Andrew, Petronio, Istvan, Donald, David, Patrick, Demo, Arjan, Andrey, Ash, Jim, Michael, Shane, Eric, Simon, Stefano, Marton, Tahsin Likes Chips, Alex, Elisabeth, Empyre18, Seth, Dragan, Tenebrion, Jason, Aimee, Jamie, Rick, John, Leah, Bacongravy, Klaus, Ps0Fa, Abel, Adam, Brian, Johann, Leonid, Thomas, Nicholas, TParkin, Kim, Ted, Joshua, John, Joe, Wees, Justin, Karan, Alex, roGER, Marton, Randy, Liubov, Jeff, Michael, Long, hunter, Craig, Kent, Stefan, ZETTAwith3TEEES, Zac, Jacqueline, Roman~1, Chris, Wesley, Robert, David, Anthony, Arend Peter, Daniel, Kamil, Dodd, Leo, How long can a profile name be... this long... Wow, this is longer than I would have expected. Good lord, the letters! Secunda!, Hugh, David, Will, Kheng Lai, Scott, Jane, Zachary, Michael, Steffen, skuerzo, Siegfried, PM, Jack, michael, Jonathan, Franklin, Trevor, Marcel, Daniel, Bradley, Connor, John, Kevin, Travis, Matthew, Andrew, Zachary, AZbytes, Johannes, Reuben, Nigel, Jacob, AB3, Sridev, Matt, Norrawed, Victor, Pedro, Michael, John, Rimvydas, George, John, Shivan, Caleb, Brenton, Hayden.
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Anthony, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Stephanie, JKH, Grégoire, Mikhail1, Laor, Maximiliano, Pineapples&bricks, Peter, std__mpa, Bac, Michael, Bob, Frank, David, Jay, Ryan, Sophie, Brett, Jill, Nathan, Post Apocalyptic In Missouri, Constanza, Kib, Forodon, Daniel, Paul, Igor, Mcfeld, Wendover Productions, Andrew, Morgon, Igor.
UPPER CLASS PATRONS
Jeromy Johnson, Juan Benet
I was kinda looking forward to seeing children on the EE leaderboard...
GDP: 0,
GDP per capita: O
Stability and confidence: Depends on parenting and genetics: 5
Growth: 10
Industry: Yes, they keep adults very busy: 10
That puts them just above Australia on the EE leaderboard.
🏆 comment of the day
Nearly nonexistent GDP due to largely unskilled and demanding workforce
😂
@@davidbrayshaw3529 their gdp per Capita is slightly above zero in the global south
So basically babies get a 7.2 on the economics chart, putting them slightly above old people and well under middle aged people
Hilarious but sad
😂 🔥
By net economic value wouldn't people in their mid 20s be most valuable, their childcare and education is already a sunk cost and they pretty much have as much future potential as infants on average.
don't do that, my Brazil got 4.0, it's a lot worse than babies
@@graemeking7336 father time
Like he was getting at, one of the biggest hurdles of advancing a nation is the growing need of a highly educated workforce. This postpones parenthood later in life. Add in internships, low entry pay, and loan debts and parenthood is a major hurdle for the needed workers.
The school was made to ensure they stay working in what the school teaches
Don't forgot outrageous home prices and high cost of day care and education.
Nah, most people are over-educated. I think we need to substantially restrict the number of people who qualify for university (to the number of people who need it) and normalise returning to uni for older people in the aim of learning for their work.
@@parksoo-kim6908 One of the problems we have is the entire concept of retirement. With an aging population, all of those retired individuals (at least until their last three or four years of life for the most part) can watch over kids and teach them just like we used to do in multigenerational housing for most of human existence. That also helps solve the cost of housing issue because that aging population will soon lead to population decline, so you really do not need additional housing stock. Indeed, slow and steady managed population decline could be the best thing that ever happened to our species because it solves so many issues all at once.
@@parksoo-kim6908 That's a major factor for sure. The few co-workers I have that have kids are in double income, double full-time households. When both parents have to work a minimum of 40 hours a week, you have to pay for daycare. They work to pay for the house and work more to pay for the daycare and don't spend much time in the house or with the kids.
I'd put a big question mark over the "more people means more chance of an Einstein" assertion. It does mean that there is more chance of someone being born who has the genetic potential to achieve that, but actually having a chance to realise that potential relies heavily on having the right life circumstances. We've probably lost a LOT of potential Einsteins to poverty, lack of education, or lack of opportunity to use that education (the last is probably less common since once you get into meritocratic academia a potential Einstein is more likely to be recognised, but even then, circumstances might still conspire to deny them that opportunity). You'd probably have a better chance of generating Einsteins by investing more into the people you already have to make sure that the potential Einsteins can realise that potential.
You also have more potentials for Maos and H-tlers. 😂
Gotta take the good with the bad.
Yea, most of the time Einsteins aren't really born they are raised. Put more into raising better children and you get more Einsteins.
1st we dont really need an Einstein. 2nd for every Einstein born there are at least one million douche tools born too. and all they do is take/consume.
@@yuki-sakurakawa
If you examined the facts rather than REGURGITATING propaganda, you would be further ahead.
@@falconJB
Have you gone through the biographies of the Teslas, Fords, and Jobs?
Edison was an AUTODICTAT.
He was able to harness the brainpower of his workforce to extend his effort.
I think the growth of population is a double edged sword.
More people is great if everyone is productive.
More people is bad if a large portion of them are not productive (unemployed/uneducated).
I think its best to think about population as a resource with certain quirks at different stages of life. It is also a resource that can be mismanaged and wasted.
Not just unproductive. But antagonistic as well.
Folks in the West can't accept the fact that there are people out there who don't care about others.
That weighs down on civilization like a boat anchor. And our enemies use that to their advantage.
(Troll Farms, supporting Fringe Groups, etc.)
The Working class cant afford kids and the system cant afford us not having kids. Amazing system weve inherited
Fantastic comment.
unpopular opinion: people can afford children, people just don't want to sacrifice their hobbies and luxuries and time and also they have very high standards for their children comfort, the proof is the poorer people on society have more children, and the poorer the country the more children they WANT
@@Random17Game standards are different from poor nations. And it is also difficult for people to have kids with the current rent prices. If people cannot give their kids a quality of life that the state demands, the state will take their kids. So those who dont have the ability to comfortably meet those standards, just usually not have kids
Amazing indeed. Working class is wealthier than ever before in human history, but worthless eaters pretend otherwise.
@@Random17Game
It’s also about risk and options. Having kids increases financial risks and decreases mobility.
Also, some of us think we wouldn’t be good parents.
Prior to the COVID outbreak, I remember reading an article that said in 2020 it was predicted that the world's population, for the first time in history, would be over 50% "middle class" meaning having extra income after paying for living expenses. Where are we now? What kinds of trends moving forward vis-a-vis poverty levels?
Whether more or less of us, I'm concerned about quality of life rather than quantity.
Tell them
Thing is you need lots of people to create a high quality of life.
The biggest issue is how long life lasts as if people live to long they become an economic burden to the nation. Historically this was not a problem because cures to most illnesses had not yet been made, and wars had also been the common occurrence for all peoples.
That said the solution to fix this modern problem is to simply colonize worlds outside of earth such as the moon or mars.
This fixes the problem as it allows for younger people to have more job opportunities and gives access to more resources to help refill the nation’s economies with valuable goods.
The profits and goods from those resources is what currently allows us to keep our elderly populations going so you can imagine how colonizing new worlds can help with the current issues we face.
@@darth3911 The term "quality of life" is highly subjective. Arguably, so is the term "job opportunity". As far as colonising new worlds is concerned, it's science fiction, nothing more.
@@darth3911 The problem is that we are nowhere near the level to colonize new planets. Even if we could, it would be a very long and tedious process. Meaning we still have to fix all the problems we are currently facing without such resources
Middle class (caste) is having a salary of over $100k
I think it would be more accurate to think about whether or not an economic system that makes it impossible to have kids is an economic system worth having.
Very bad take. People can actually afford far more kids than before. The difference is people greatly raised their standards on what they want for their kids while also no longer wanting to make as much of a sacrifice to have kids.
@Jack Jones Indeed. And actual inflation (in terms of rent and groceries) is far higher than reported inflation. The days are long gone when someone could drop out of high school and proceed to raise an entire family off that one salary, having a house and some holidays in the process. Try doing that today.
Always wondered why the left in some countries (the right secretly supports to lower wages domestically) wants more immigration. The left once supported stronger unions, higher pay, and nationalised social services; now they are silent or just give lip service to unions. The left (labour parties) have become the conservative parties of yesteryear.
Economics is becoming more and more anti human as it develops. And I say that as a capitalist.
Since birthrates are dropping, the system is already developing ways to eliminate the need for human consumption altogether.
I have a problem with more kids, higher population, more geniuses theory. I’ve heard it quite a few times now and it’s never challenged. No one ever mentions that tackling inequality may lead to the same result of producing geniuses. There are so many people in the world who don’t have much chance of ever realising their potential. Due to this, it’s hard to take this argument seriously.
It’s hard to take this argument seriously when we have enough resources for everyone on our planet. The resources just have to be distributed in fairer ways.
I think what you’re suggesting is eating from a higher proportion of a pie rather than eating the same percentage of a bigger pie. Maybe this can work, but it comes with resource problems too like creating needed capital in other countries (and fighting corruption). Both options could work, but then it’s asking which is most efficient, likely, and perhaps even which fits the best desired time horizon
You say that as if we cant do both. We can have more geniuses and make poor people richer at the same time. Thats both possible and happening…
@@1tsyabo170 We're going to run out of oil under current consumption by 2080. There are 170 million children working in low skill professions instead of going to school. That's a Russia's worth of children this isn't working for. Is it really worth it to continue on when we could help so many more people by making bold changes now?
I read there is so much prenatal malnutrition in parts of India today that no matter how many children they have, they cannot develop to their full mental capacity. I also read a study that demonstrated we have so many people now and there is so little variation in the human genome that there are literally unrelated copies of people in the world today. Based on these studies, I think the argument of quality over quantity is a very real issue that analysts tend to ignore.
Problem with GDP is that it only affect the top level.
Companies and few individuals got richer, the other 80-90% got poorer.
I'm not old by any means and I remember I could buy many things with $1 (unit of money. Interpret it to whatever currency you want) and now that same amount gets me basically nothing.
My salary is really good, but I still feel the weight of all that is needed for me to survive every month, whereas if it was 10-15y ago, I would be living a king's life.
I understand we are moving forward and getting lots of advancements, but where is all that money going to? I don't feel we are getting a good return from all that investment.
Progress feel way slower for more money.
Look at computers for example. We went from KiloBytes in the 70's to GigaBytes in the late 2000's and we are still kinda stuck on it now. Of course I'm simplifying it a lot and I understand things get more difficult to innovate.
Progress isn't slower, the benefits are more concentrated (in the US).
The US went neo-liberal in the 70s (and accelerated in the 80s). We are simply living with the effects of those policy decisions now.
The great stagnation
The ultra rich have climbed the ladder and pulled it up after them.
Part of this is that in the same time, the explosive rise of bureaucratic institutions which increase costs on EVERYONE. For example, one of the biggest factors in Healthcare inflation has been that administrators outpace physicians by roughly 100x. It's just really not feasible overall, but it's something that we've gained culturally as something of a necessity for reasons which I'm not entirely sure of. Whether it be fear of conflict or people refusing to be told no. I can't really figure it out. It's a symptom of the managerial revolution where middle managers have most control and the organizations are more complex and impersonal ruling most people's lives.
That is why GDP is NOT a good measure of how rich a country is, compared to GDP per capita. The US is actually the 10th richest country, not the 1st, when using GDP per capita, which is a more honest comparison of wealth between countries.
With where I live I probably couldn't buy a house if I saved for 20 years, let alone with kids. At this point I'm content to live my life alone and stay with my parents until they're gone and the house passes to me.
Where you at?
I knew that was my fate since 12th grade
Same here
People, it’s not as hard as you think. Buy a house on loan/mortgage either with an accessory dwelling unit or build one yourself. Live in the adu and rent out the entire house. The renters will pay your mortgage. Use your own money to pay off your mortgage faster. After 20 to 30 years, you own the house outright and can start on another house. When you want to retire, use your rental income and live somewhere that is cheaper, like Mexico or Philippines, etc and live comfortably with the passive income from your houses.
@@grimmlinn you sound like my grandfather. I can't tell if you're being serious.
I know hundreds of young adults that would have chosen to have a family if they had a place of their own and job security.
It`s absurd how they intentionally limit house supply so that young people wont be able to afford a place of their own.
A place to live is a basic necessity!
Then they claim we don't have enough people to fill the job market, so they invite millions of foreigners whoch depress wages and inflate property values, making things worse.
There is no political solution.
Who is “they” in this?
@@m1k3y48 "They" = Capitalism doing what it normally does.
@@m1k3y48 Current homeowners, property developers, real estate investment companies, and government officials are the "they".
@@JWelsh07 property developers are still building housing out the whazoo in places like Japan. The issue is zoning laws and in the u.s. our obsession with inefficient housing that will be the death of us (suburbs/single family housing). Across the world they have gotten more strict over time and multiple organizations that have researched it found it was just dumb regulations that have been leading to less housing development (sh"t like "minimum parking requirements".) It would also be nice if we developed a lot more public housing as well.
But I seriously doubt you know "hundreds" of any group of people, much less young adults eager to have kids. And if so they are immoral fools.
Good video, overall. And it doesn't factor in inequality in consumption patterns. A family in rural Somalia having another child puts far less strain on global resources than if a Kardashian decided to.
A Somali child exists in quite less a timespan as well. Much less strain on global resources when you don't exist.
If the Somali kid consumes few resources, it is because he/she will not have a high standard of living. What the video is trying to address is: how are we going to preserve living standards in the future. Lowering living standards to Somali levels is not a solution.
Yes but Somalians are black, whereas Kardashians only sleep with blacks.
You can live voluntarily like a Somali child being an equal strain on global resources. For some reason, you choose not to.
@@ronald3836 Well, if we educate people better, they typically have fewer children. So if Africans become better educated, they'll choose from their own volition (no coercion or force required) to have fewer children. So that's probably one part of the solution.
Unrelated but I just wanted to say thanks!
I had my Economics exam yesterday and I have to say that if I hadn't been casually watching your videos, it wouldn't have went as well as it did! Your videos gave me an intuitive understanding of basic economics which made studying other stuff a breeze as I could logically understand the concepts. I was able to write much more clear answers, as I didn't understand economics very well before watching your videos. So thank you EE team for making nice videos!
This is a never ending loop. People want to advance in life, whether it is about status, financial, education, etc. The more people advance/level up, the less people are willing to do hard physical labour.
What this has to do with children? A more advanced society demans more from its population to contribute on every aspect including population grow. But, contributing in other aspects make people less inclined to have many children or having a child at all.
Absolutely cannot afford kids. I went from being comfortable middle class to about to be homeless. AI will destroy white collar jobs, and automation will destroy blue collar jobs.
Houses are becoming more and more unaffordable, pollution worse and worse, corporations keep merging, more monopolies, geopolitical turmoil, cost of healthcare is ridiculous, cost of childcare is ridiculous.
And if both parents are working, school schedules don't match work schedules, and what if child gets sick, which parent has to risk their job to take care of child?.
Words can't describe how miserable I am and how close I am to loosing it.
#mood
Children in advanced economies are for the poorest people because of the social programs and payouts will sustain you if you choose this path. However , it's the middle class that the costs hit, they are making too much for the free social money but not enough to pay for expensive childcare and expenses out of picket all while paying elevated taxes to prop up the ever expanding social systems. Rich people are the opposite side, they can afford children and send them off to private schools and not face the "work" of raising them.
My wife and I are in this exact situation. We're reverting back to multi- generation family structure because we are NOT going to pay somebody else to raise our children.
That's alot of word salad victim porn
We are in a economics channel so I understand, but to reduce family only to the economic factor may be a mistake. It's a commitment of life time, it's more important to some that just it's cost, and less or none at all for others.
I believe it depends on what you are ready to sacrifice, it's more important a big house or a good car or the education and well being of your son or daughter?
The taxes we pay, I pray reach who needs them truly, it's the price to pay for social peace, we all have to remember that people too poor to live decently are dangerous people to everyone else, including themselves.
@@Gaspardrow Where I live, child care can cost as much or more than rent/mortgage. This often leads people to choose between home ownership or retirement savings vs having a family. This is a huge factor why many don’t have children and is ultimately corrosive to the middle class.
Definitely has nothing to do with stagnant wages, higher costs of education, higher costs of owning property, higher costs of childcare, widening wealth inequality, monopolization accross industries, access to easy and predatory credit lines, or anything else.
It's those always those f'n poor people!
Most economists work for the rich. The rich want cheap labor and they get it by rapid population growth. That is why most economists support rapid population growth.
An excellent video. My wife pointed out that there are many people in the third world who are being poorly utilized as contributors to the economy.
As an elder millennial, one of the few advantages is having lived through the Great Recession. My advice. Reduce unnecessary expenses, increase your savings by investing in financial markets and do not sell. One thing I know for sure is that diversifying your income can help insulate you from much of the craziness going on in the world.
That's true, I'm thinking of investing in stocks or digital assets to grow my money for the first time, but I lack the in-depth knowledge and mental toughness to deal with these recurring market conditions. please any advice or pointer on how to outperform the market producing good returns.
“There’s more and more of a concern that incoming data is revealing that the Fed might be a little bit behind the curve than maybe they expected heading into this year,” said Bipan Rai, North America head of FX strategy at CIBC Capital Markets.
@@hannahdonald9071 You will need a strong FA to help you through the current market turmoil. I've been talking to an advisor for a while now, mostly because I lack the knowledge and energy to deal with these ongoing market conditions. I made more than $220K during this slump, demonstrating that there are more aspects of the market than the average individual is aware of. Having an investing counselor is now the best line of action, especially for those who are close to retiring.
@@mcginnnavraj4201 We’re only just an information away from amassing wealth, I know a lot of folks that made fortunes from the Dotcom crash as well as the 08’ crash and I’ve been looking into similar opportunities in this present market, could this coach that guides you help?
My Financial Advisor is JEANNE LYNN WOLF. I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and reached out to her afterwards. She has since provide entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can run a quick online research with her name if you care for supervision. I basically follow her market moves and haven’t regretted doing so.
Advanced machinery is often more difficult to maintain than you might think. Often for very advanced systems only a single person really understands how a part of it works with all the technical detail required to make it work as anything more than just magic. No one knows the whole of how it works. Maybe AI could help with this and act as an authoritative source, but it seems we're a ways out from that now. Depopulation would mean we could loose people vital to machines with little hope of replacing them.
Perhaps as simpler tasks are automated, those workers seek new employment (and further education).
abolish child labor laws, ban retirement for those capable of working
problem solved
Solve the free rider problem, you say? Easy as.. 😆
@@neocortex8198ot really...
In both of those cases you'd get a drop in productivity and people falling into poverty because a lot of those people genuinely can't work even if governments and sometimes other people *think* that they can...
And more desperate people would also lead to more crime...
As for the kids...
Well, if they work they don't do other things vital for their future capabilities as people, be that education or development as individuals...
And their future productivity will suffer as a result...
Essentially your "solution" is at best just a attempt at kicking the box forwards...
Also, it causes legitimacy issues for taxes and retirement funds etc...
Essentially, if people expect to get certain benefits from paying for something and they don't get that then I'd the government or whoever is paying for the pensions isn't holding their end of the deal then why should we?
And people start trying to avoid taxes etc....
(Already a problem, but it gets worse if your suggestion is followed, and there's always migration to countries with better terms, with the resulting loss of taxes on inheritance etc)
@@neocortex8198 if they spend all their time getting chewed up by machinery they cant spend time getting an education to operate the more advanced bits of the economy leading to further slowdown.
My fellow Australians have an aversion to using "fewer" rather than "less" 😅
"fewer children"
Unlike other children, Australians are spawned as a liquid making the term "less children" correct.
Maybe it's an economist thing.
Or is it 'Fuhrer children' you grammar natzee
I thought he was talking about smaller children.
Stannis Baratheon has entered the chat
Hey Economics Explained. You seem to think that the housing crisis is a fundamental issue with lack of resources. It is not. It is almost entirely zoning related and almost entirely caused by rich people not willing to allow high density housing near where they live. We could carry well above 20B people comfortably if we just got rid of all the NIMBY's.
If I don’t have children, I don’t need to worry about the financial burden, or worry about my would be children growing up in a veritable dumpster fire due to… everything.
Yup
It also ensures that there is more to go around because other people's children will not have to compete against your hypothetical children for resources and opportunities.
Probably in a couple of years on EE: "Can we still afford to eat? - Becoming plants"
Putting that in terms of production we always need more of those that have better quality and less of those with worse quality, but we always end with way more of those with the worst quality possible.
Please consider making a playlist of your videos that address population issues!
unpopular opinion: people can afford children, people just don't want to sacrifice their hobbies and luxuries and time and also they have very high standards for their children comfort, the proof is the poorer people on society have more children, and the poorer the country the more children they WANT, and have
@@Random17Game Proorer people need 50-600% redundancy children, because of higher child mortality.
It is not that people want more children. It is that they want to have the same amount of children survive until adulthood.
@@Random17Game There is this stray cat in that lives in compound of my apartment block (does that even make sense). It survives on scraps. It did give birth to a kitten maybe 9 months ago which is kinda mature right now. The stray cat did kind of become somewhat emaciated. 2 months ago it gave birth to a second kitten (look cats give birth to a litter but I don't want to type out a horror story) and it's even more emaciated. My country has a fertility rate of 4.69. I never want to have kids. Every time I wake up in the morning and give this cat whatever scraps I have, I keep thinking, this right here is why I never want to have kids. I've seen people raise 16 children in a space smaller than my living room (my apartment is half the size of what you'd get in Chicago at $2500, well at least it's half my sister's apartment). I dunno how they do it and I'll never understand why they keep doing it but unless you have seen what the poor in a 3rd world country look like you cannot fathom the sacrifice it would take to live like them
@@Random17Game That really isn't an unpopular opinion. But honestly I do think the world needs less people through negative population growth or at least we should find ways to produce more.
@@FictionHubZA it is because a lot of people say economic difficulties, if we compare the way kids today are raised with how our grandparents were raised (I'm talking 1st and 2nd world countries) we can see how standards have massively risen by the parents, but economies are now stagnant and cannot grow with the too high expectations of the 1st world. And for those who want population decrease you should still want a 1.8/1.9 fertility rate otherwise social securities Will colapse if the drop is too hard, otherwise the elder, handicaped, mentally ill, orfans etc will have SERIOUS trouble getting by (more than they do)
In my honest point of view, i think that the true problem is not related to the subject "have more children or not", but with our bad consumption habits, our consumption efficiency etc. I always give a like before watching the content. Thx !😊
Yes! How about we stop being heedless wankers with our resources? Stop letting predatory capitalism r@pe the Commons? Stop the fast fashion / disposable society / shopping to fill a void behaviours?
Our bad consumption as far as modern economics is a good thing, the quicker you spend, the quicker it can be used again. GDP is a measurement of how many times money changes hands, not how much money there is.
@@loowyatt6463 you don't want to artificially pump up the numbers at the expense of building real wealth. you can still spend, but be more judicious when doing so.
It's not Our habits it's the company's in the United States that made people assume these habits are normal
@@joe42m13 This comment applies to "liking a video before you watch it" aswell. Hard to explain so I'm not even going to try but I can see a connection.
It's gonna be tough for a young person to be productive when they need a masters degree or 15 years of experience to land a good job. We've made entry-level positions almost obsolete except in sales careers. I'm not advocating for children to join the labor force before they're ready, but what are we doing to ensure young people have somewhere to work once they finish their education?
Don't worry.
AI will make that concern irrelevant when all jobs are wiped out and everyone goes on basic income.
@@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy I'm not sure if I like that idea either 😢
@@highlyillogical9399
AI will radically change everything.
AI could also solve the primary problem of economics. Amazon is probably pretty good at resource allocation already.
One critical factor you’ve overlooked is that as the baby boomer generation retires they will shift their pension funds out of higher risk stocks into bonds, this will limit the availability of venture capital for higher risk funding which is commonly in the tech sectors, so it’s hard to see how a disproportionately older society maintains the same level of tech innovation we’ve seen in the last 30 or so years since the Cold War ended.
Is there any branch of economics that accounts for the fact that a high-end watch is Expensive, but not Useful? Producing watches inflates your countries GDP but should they really be worth more than a vehicle, which can transport people and goods, when a watch can only tell time?
Behavioural economics looks at what gives luxury goods their value.
A luxury watches primary usefulness is as a symbol of social status, that value could be worth more than the physical utility given by a vehicle.
A car can be classified as capital, while a luxury watch would be classified as a consumer good.
@@RobinMeineke It'd be classified as a Veblen Good, which is a category of things that violate the general law of demand and supply - as their price goes up, their demand does too. There are consequences to that insofar as their equilibrium price goes..
@@themrmarshallmathers That 'value' is nothing more than conjecture. In accounting terms it'd be classified alongside 'goodwill', which should tell you a lot about what the computation of their 'value' is i.e. there is none, 'goodwill' is just a catch-all accounting term used to balance the books. There's no way to determine the real 'value' of social status, so they're just 'valued' at the price itself. The luxury watch is basically valued the same way art is 'valued' - it's worth whatever the price paid was. Good luck showing how art sitting in a storage vault somewhere has much 'utility'. The watch is little different, we just assume the price is its 'value'.
Probably some section of Marxist economics. We could theoretically only make and all drive Ford Fiestas, and spend the savings on healthcare. But, to the extent that democracies function in practice, our revealed preference is for more aesthetically-pleasing cars and more illness/death among proles...
Man, well put together video as always EE
You provide us with the essential service of collecting all the data, projections, speculations, and scenarios that pertain to a certain topic, and boiling it all down into a 10 minute video that’s easy to digest and understand
Keep on providing us that service my friend :)
No, But people from economically disadvantaged countries tend to have more children despite lacking financial resources.
It's by design, a western kid won't grow up to do the jobs that migrants happily take
Cheap/free labour + insurance against higher infant mortality + little/no access to family planning resources makes it a no brainer
In the early 70's the media were completely focused on the ballooning population crisis, and lack of oil. All were doomsday stories, experts said there was no way out. Despite advances in efficiency of food and oil production, I think many of our current problems can indeed be traced back to overpopulation.
Overpopulation is a malthusian myth. At worst, we have an overcrowding problem in some geographical locations.
Yeah the book "the population bomb" was silly because it was written basically 2 years after we saw industrialized birth rates fall off a cliff.
I don't think most of our problems can be traced to overpopulation. You have local overcrowding which can cause social tensions, but that's an administrative or social issue primarily rather than an economic one.
The biggest problem economically is that people make up the economy. And socially, there has never been a period of population decline which hasn't had immense social issues. Not to mention, most periods suffer economic collapse.
If you take Japan as an example, its economically all but died and has now been on 30 years of life support. What do you think happens when they slowly lose even more people overall? I don't think it'll end well.
Overall, while growing populations have their issues, they're far less than losing people.
@@brunods4560 Having an abundance mindset is bad for the war machine
@@the_expidition427 hear hear
I love that word consumption as I am in my 60s I realize that a lot of the stuff that we call consumerism is actually just plain old junk and just not needed. It’s a junk economy.
Junk loves junk.
"I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating.“ - Slavoj Žižek
*fewer as children are a discrete variable rather than continuous
An increasing population benefits those that are already here like getting into a pyramid-scheme early. But if you’re at the wide end of the pyramid, or get in late, you’re going to have a far worse experience, on average, compared to those that got in early (the generations before you.)
finally someone informed. Modern (western) economies operate as one big pyramid scheme. With savvy grifters to drain the treasury (socialize losses, privatize gains).
This is part of the problem in America. For younger generations it is impossible to have the minimum needed to start a family successfully compared to older generations that had better opportunities
Oddly enough, one potential answer may be to become more rural and spread out our population density. I read a story from CNN from Japan, featuring the first baby born in a village in at least 25 years. The parents were a couple that moved from one of the major population centers of Japan--I think it was Tokyo--for a more quiet life, as well as more affordable life, outside of Japan's cities. Much like many other industrialized nations, the majority economic activity, but also very high cost of living, is in the cities of Japan. However, moving outside of the city to more affordable living could have been why this couple could have a child. They are actually not alone. Almost half of young Japanese want to move outside of the cities to more affordable living in the country. In another article, I think from the Guardian, a large share of Millennials and Generation Z in the United States, when interviewed, said the cost of living was what was causing them to not have children, and if the cost of living went down, they would be more likely to have children. But since the majority economic activity, and therefore jobs, are in the cities in industrialized nations, people are more likely to live in the cities, but since the cost of living is high in the cities, they are not likely to have children in the cities. Unless jobs somehow become more plentiful in rural areas, this possible answer to having more children may not ever become viable.
Yeah that might be the solution for the next generation. It's not attractive, and it certainly promises they'll get a harder life, but at least it's not impossible...
work from home
Exactly,we need to simplify our lives. Urbanisation at any cost is not leading us to anywhere.
China did very well on this issue by having high speed rail access between smaller towns and the big city areas where the jobs are at. If there was good, reliable, fast and efficient transportation between these destinations people would be willing to live further out. I'm in North West Yorkshire and know people who commute to London to work from here, yet people struggle getting from Manchester to Leeds
I kindve disagree with this. When people put a priority on having children, they have them. Even if it means in the short run life gets a bit harder. If children are nice to have but not seen as a necessity, you will not have them unless conditions are good in your opinion.
I find those with a more religious or long term (meaning multigenerational) outlook tend to have children and more of them.
I’m pretty disappointed in the quality of thinking in this EE video. Too much false dichotomising between declining fertility/populations, and high population growth. The latter is a straw man. High income countries’ TFR is well below replacement, and overall middle income TFR is just above replacement but soon to blow straight through 2.1, and likely before any of these countries join the high-income country club. There is zero prospect of even maintaining replacement fertility. Even in high-income countries, national pensions and private retirement savings are not going to support the elderly like in a past when economic expansion was supported by modest population growth. Middle-income countries are in much deeper trouble in this regard.
We have enough resources to meet the basic needs of everybody.
Our problem is our current economic system that focuses a lot of wealth in the hands of the few.
False. It’s logistics not greed
@@SamuraiPoohBear Many people have to live off of 1 or 2 dollars a day while some other people have 30-40 million dollar private jets or yachts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Nah, it's definitely greed.
You mean we need dictatorship, planned economy that do the logistics to distribute the resources evenly for everyone not just for a country but for the whole world. Yeah, goodluck with that.
In a society which not everyone thinks the same. Someone wants more, someone want less and some who tries hard, some who didn't even try. Goodluck with your Utopia.
@@SamuraiPoohBear Sometimes. It may be illogical logistics under the guise of greed, or it may be greed under the guise of illogical logistics. Both cases likely exist to varying degrees.
I think just having more population will not guarantee the existence of all the geniuses mentioned. I mean, yes, the probability is higher, but these future geniuses must also have the right access to learn. It will be interesting to address the barriers to economic access to economic success.
Its all about probability: more children mean a higher probability even with other variables unconsidered.
@@japanisch508 Children aren't born geniuses. Some have more potential, which must be identified and nurtured in order to develop. More children means fewer gifted children are ever given that chance. We can hope to win another Einstein lottery, but if we can't bring up the talent pool around them in order to make use of their singular genius, if we cannot apply their gifts, it's no different than never getting them.
@@stevesmith9447 if there are more intelligent people, the probability is still higher. Even if and especially when we have a fixed percentage of good enviremental factors and that the enviremental factors are getting better is first of all evident (Steven Pinker) and with more intelligent people the enviremental factors are getting even better.
And i would say that still with bad enviromental factors intelligent people are faster than not intelligent, so i dont get your point, it doesnt lessen the main point in reality or in theory.
@@japanisch508 Model it how you like. If your theory was correct, we'd have already solved these problems, or we'd have at least moved in the direction of solving them. In reality we've moved away from solutions. Your model doesn't hold up.
10:00 I don’t really agree that simply having more people will lead to more “geniuses”. Those people are typically “born” out of necessity - they do what is necessary at the time. On top of that, they could only work on all of those amazing things because they have the time & resources available - meaning they were usually already rich “elites”, very much well-off with lots of spare time. So, in my opinion, a smaller, more prosperous, less stressed out population will lead to many more meaningful scientific breakthroughs, compared to a society that’s stuck in a “rat race to the bottom” with completely broken incentive structures (i.e. “survive the overpopulation & lack of resources by any means necessary” which will most likely just lead to an new innovative way to get rid of a lot of people “by force”).
Agreed I thought that was stupid reasoning at 10:00. Also, those people were born when the population is a lot smaller with a lot more resources available which gave them a better chance to nurture their talents. A larger population with less resources actually shrinks the talent pool.
This so much. We already have a giant amount of humans on this planet and so many of them are potentially super smart geniuses. But it's not about the number of people at all, it's about incentive structures and opportunities. If those potentially smart geniuses die off in wars and conflicts around resources or are caught up in drug addiction due to poverty, or simply are burned out by a hyper-capitalist system, guess what, they won't do any genius work. This more people = more geniuses to solve social ills argument is so freaking dumb seriously.
Actually thinking that population growth will increase breakthroughs fails to take into account the embarrassing inefficiency and wastefulness of our education system poised to create the kind of people who can create these breakthroughs in the first place.
Are you writing this on a stone tablet or a carving it into a cave?
Bad take. Smarter people than you have gone through education systems worse than the US and yet they’re leading world leaders all around us today. This is a cope. That doesn’t stop genius.
When looking at global GDP you forgot to check inflation, which between 1985 and 2010 was 102% or 2x. That means that real GDP growth was 2.5x not 5x. This is quite in line with 2x increase in resources used.
“Nobody can predict the future..”
Me, in unison: *least of all economists*
Hahaha - thank you. I laughed after ages. 😅
yeah. but economists spend of a lot of time economic planning and trying to bring the economy back in line w/established plans...for the benefit of a very small group of ppl (ie the social & economic elites). so they dont have to predict, only need 2 know how to manipulate variables.
The issue with minerals resources isn't that they're finite despite what a lot of people say. The issue is that we mine the easiest stuff first, so each time one mine runs out, we go to a less efficient one (obviously, this is oversimplified). Yes, technology improves and makes it easier to mine, but there's only so far technology can go in this industry.
As the things we mine will become more difficult and we lose efficiency, then the price will rise. So the more people there are using these resources, the worse this situation gets.
So, while I appreciate a lot of what you've said, you've ignored this one simple fact. Advancing technology means absolutely nothing if you can't get the minerals you need to build that technology.
Supply does not meet demand when it comes to finite resources. Commodities either increase in price or are unavailable.
Diminishing returns
That is a long, long, long way off considering there are viable mines sitting idle across the western world because the oil required to extract it from developing nations is cheap. Humanity, even as many as we are, is still just scratching at the surface of the earth.
I think because this problem is expected to be so far down the road for a lot of resources (hundreds of years at least), a lot of people hand wave it away by saying we'll just be mining space rocks, or drilling kilometers deep into the crust with ease by then.
@@mattheww.6232 did you read my comment at all? My entire point was that the cheaper and more efficient mines get used first. Which means growing cost and falling efficiency over time
From a social POV, I believe there are enough resources in the world to sustain double the current world population. Our problem is first of all, the unequal distribution of wealth/resources across populations and secondly, the inefficient and wasteful utilisation of available resources. Climate change, housing shortage, food crisis, lack of clean water e.t.c can all be addressed if these two issues are tackled.
I agree. Human intelligence is what makes the difference.
Even in a small community, they create large changes. In contrast to being alone and surrounded by not-so virtuous people.
Now imagine if these smart people made up the consensus.
You have a First World county. Regardless of color. Or where you are in the world.
The real issue is that while a lower population is better for the bottom 99%, it is horrible for the top 1%'s numbers getting bigger!
Since the most important part of a modern economy is the top 1% being richer than their parents, we need more workers to make stuff and buy stuff to increase the number of currency attached to their names.
Elons wants to people have more children...
Well will HE pay for my children school? Food? Clothes?... NO?!! HOW DARE YOU!!! :D
Yup, its all talk at the end if the day
Ahh yes, the economist once again trying to analyze social issues without sounding too heartless.
😂
Me thinking through the entire video "Oh look, more problems caused by the existence of billionaires", and then he gets to the "what sacrifices should we make first?" and I'm like "Gee, I wonder what he's SPECIFICALLY not going to mention, yeah, the existence of billionaires...."
1 billionaire consumes resources that emit 1 million times more carbon than the average person. After that it's just a math problem.
@@scottgrindrod Source for your 1 million times more carbon than the average person claim?
@@Talonidas7403 Sounds hyperbolic, but $500 million dollar mansions, private jets every other day, vanity projects etc etc. The carbon argument is less compelling than how broken the system has to be to encourage both the accumulation and behaviors that it takes to become a billionaire.
@@scottgrindrod A billionaire's resource consumption per dollar is negligible. If you would spread out the billions that are just sitting somewhere over a million people, you will increase resource consumption massively.
Yesn't. Cuz it's so expensive to have kids but ppl from poor countries(Africán and asián nations) have more than 3 children.
True
because they're way of life isn't as expensive as ours
The arguments for population increase is like standing on a cliff and saying "even though I can't think of anything that will save me, I'm sure something will come along" before jumping off.
Gotta love the optimism 😂
More like walking up unfinished stairs with your eyes closed, assuming that someone will have fished each step before you get to it.
To me it comes down to the risk of falling into poverty and having children only exacerbates financial problems.
8:50 doesn't calculate the inflation of dollar. 100 dollars in 1914 is 3000 dollars in 2023. 30x the value. So we are using 10x more resources to produce same amount of dollars.
Graphs of value over time always use constant dollars. Which year's dollars should be included on the graph (e.g., "2020 dollars"), which it wasn't, in this case.
Yes and look at the value of British currency over centuries. One Pound Sterling in year 800 was one pound (that time about 340 grams) of Sterling silver. Today £1 doesn't buy you even a bottle of water.
Fewer.
I honestly don’t know what they even teach in school anymore. “Less” applies to ONE thing. “Fewer” applies to multiple things. Less rain. Fewer raindrops.
8:09 what about inflation tho? wouldn't that make the real economic growth smaller than the 5x shown in this graph?
I think they are constant prices
Not only that, goverments inflate their GDP figures as well.
the problem is that average people in western economies struggle to afford housing/quality of life that would encourage settling down and having a couple of kids, base line costs of living compared to income is where the major issue is that needs to be addressed
A major false assumption is that anyone without children will be taken care of long term. My own experience with elderly family members is without someone to look after them and be their advocate, they would rapidly succumb to predatory practices, bad finances, and negligent care resulting in earlier death.
That's why we need more communities rather than care homes. So that people are not limited to blood-related people for care and can receive it by contributing to other families and taking care of children that are not their own like an aunt or uncle without having to have children of their own.
@Evilds You are talking about churches and mutual aid societies.....which have been actively attacked by collectivists and pro-government types for the past century. Public aid is big business, and they don't like the competition.
You had me at less screaming children coughing on everything
Super-Important to this whole Children-Question:
The Points made in 'Are Rich People Ok??' by 'Some More Nws'.
7:54 are these two sets of GDP data adjusted for inflation or not?
No! Governments love inflation. Growth is growth and inflation prevents falling GDP which in turn prevents recession ( by definition only!) which keeps governments in office.
In my personal opinion, the term GDP should be struck from all economic texts and measures. It's a number that only serves fools and frauds.
Growing up I was always excited about the idea of having kids of my own 3 at first but gradually after seeing the world for what it is I kept lowering and lowering the number of kids I wanted to have, right now I am in the university and I am not really sure if I want to have kids at all
Me too
Everyone in your generation will look at the situation and make the same rational decision to have no kids.
You should look at market forces and do the opposite of what everyone else does.
If you are one of the few people to do this, your kids will be the only game in town in the future.
You will have kids to care for you when you are older. Good insurance.
You should have ten kids and start your own empire.
It will be a struggle, but your life will be filled with love and family.
Everyone else will die alone.
@@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy you’re delusional
The sudden decline in population after the Black Death resulted in end of serfdom and wage increases for farm labour. Worth considering given how Bosses are not sharing the boom in productivity
Norway was producing artificial fertilizer before Haber-Bosch. Thanks to Sam Eyde & Kristian Birkeland. The Haber-Bosch method prevailed due to it being vastly more energy efficient, but artificial fertilizers would have existed without them.
Yes, the historic Birkeland Eyde furnace is on display in Rjukan. It used electric arc ionisation to fix atmospheric nitrogen. This process was very demanding on electricity, that's why it was built beside massive hydroelectric plant.
Haber-Bosch process later made the production way cheaper.
I can barely afford myself...
Most can’t afford em now
Consistent inflation is helping lol
You missed several important details. Such as the fact that richer economies are much more resource efficient than poorer economies.
Meanwhile, the idea that a managed decline is more predictable and therefore better does not follow. The range of possibilities are so much worse than the range of possibilities for increases.
Finally, the idea of more capital being available for fewer people doesn’t follow, either. Our physical capital needs people to maintain. Say the population is cut in half. Great, twice as much housing for everyone! But also, half as many people to be plumbers and electricians and roofers to fix said housing. Repeat for every tangible piece of capital. Of course, what is more likely is a gradual decline will lead to a gradual increase in capital/person, making it easier to afford more children, increasing the birth rate.
Finally (for real, this time): no country wants a declining population. Meaning every country will do their damnedest to prevent it. Eventually, some country is going to figure out how to do it, even if it means cutting old age pensions to zero and taking that surplus and giving it to parents instead. Or maybe it’ll be a non-monetary solution. Either way, once one society figures it out, everyone else will adapt.
Completely dependent upon the government.
It seems that whoever holds the most power will try to make sure that they keep all the resources to themselves and let the rest of their population die.
Every recent law seems to show this.
The resources are limited. With the rate of pollution and etc. We don't need more people, especially uneducated ones. We need a balanced number of people but it is for sure lower than human count now. The pensions is a problem because there was a baby boom after war and technologies evolved. If we don't give in and don't reproduce like rabbits after 40 years the baby boomers will all be dead and the graph will look equal with adequate number of pensioners made up from millennial and adequate number of zoomers and the next gen. More people is not an answer unless you send them too moon, we don't have enough even to feed ever growing population now and the biggest populations are in the worst countries ever, so they are very useless and uneducated.
An idea will be to tax those who don't have children and subsidize those who have children,many will not like it but we know"a child is raised by a village" so why not every member of village contribute 😁
A youtube phd guy sitting his whole life behind desk is detached from the reality you described. In his eyes everyone should be a software engineer/academician in their 80s and the world(Australia) will be just fine
Those "so called" Rich economies were poor too
Infact they ruthlessly exploited other nations for their benefits keeping them underprivileged, and now instructing them on what to nd what not!
What a hypocrites
Great video, but i have the following objections:
1. The assumption that people only consume natural resources rather than adding to the total resource pool as well. “Infinite growth in a finite world is impossible” YES. But that assumed that this is a finite world, which i contend that it is not. Note that im not proposing that infinite growth is possible, but that the growth does not have to be as limited as often proposed. (I am writing my objections as the video plays, but you did accept this point at a later point in the vid)
1A. Anyone would concede that humans do put a strain on natural resources, but given that with human ingenuity and research and development, we have replaced our reliance on natural resources with reliance on newer technologies that dont rely on natural resources, i propose that this problem will become less relevant as time progresses just due to technological progress.
1B. I accept the counter argument that technological development is not guaranteed. But i do think that it is likely given how far we have come over the last 100 years.
2. Regarding the less food production -> less people, we already produce more food than we need, and the rate at which we do that is accelerating. So there is no reason to assume that there will be less food production.
3. Regarding the less people -> less food production, is that because there is less people to produce the food or because there is less demand for food? If its the latter, i answer that there is already an oversupply of food given that we produce more food than we need. If its the former, as technology improves, we dont need as many farmers (as evidenced by the rate of people leaving farming and going to the cities)
4. I still see no convincing reasons why depopulation will lead to more prosperity per capita, and even if it does, in good times, people have more children, so even if depopulation does lead to more prosperity per capita, it wont last. The counter argument to this is that a declining population in the near future even if it bounces back will mean that by 2200, there will be less people than there would be if not for the depopulation, and that that still means more prosperity per capita by 2200. To that, i revert to the first part of this objection that there are no convincing reasons why depopulation will lead to higher prosperity per capita. (I picked the year 2200 arbitrarily, but you could make the same argument for any year far in the future).
5. Climate change should not be considered when predicting economic models as the error margins for our current projections of future economic growth are more than the amount that climate change will hypothetically affect the economy. If my memory serves me right, it is estimated that our global gdp in 2100 will be 400 trillion assuming no climate change and that if we factor in climate change, it’ll drop to 386 trillion. BUT, that 14 trillion difference falls within the error margin of the 400 trillion. That is, we say that we project 400 trillion, but in reality, 400 trillion is the median between different projections. So in reality its 400 +- x trillion, where x > 14 trillion. The reason i raise this is that it is not obvious that “saving the environment” (whatever that entails) will have a substantial impact anyway. And even if it does have an impact, those projections aren’t guaranteed and could very much be totally wrong. AND, we’d have this problem regardless of how many children we have.
6. “Slow decline doesnt feel human” thats because its not just “not human” its actively anti human.
7. “Most governments tend to agree” who cares, governments aren’t experts and are subject to the whims of whatever the people they govern think regardless of whether its correct or not. Thats a fallacious appeal to authority.
7. How can you say that “we’re headed towards the depopulation option now”, while also saying that our population will hit roughly 10 billion?? Birth rates are declining, but as long as they stay at or more than 2.00…1 people we woman, they will rise. And yes birth rates are decreasing in the west, but in countries like Nigeria and Indonesia they are not.
I know there will be comments ripping into me and my arguments above but i do invite (and am willing to entertain) civil discussion.
Fantastic video.
I think it’s one of your best yet.
Keep up the good work.
Your awesome.
The notion we need more people to advance faster is insane. Of course more people mean a higher chance of a brilliant person, but also a higher chance of another nasty criminal, and the largest number will be ordinary at best. There's no real need for progress to faster, since generally faster change isn't likely to be the best change.
Its not even an accurate assumption, more people doesn't lead to more geniuses, more educated people, who grow up without being poised by stuff like lead, leads to more geniuses and faster progress. Criminals also are not just randomly distributed throughout the population, they come out of specific circumstances as well.
@@falconJB No. Criminals are born the way they are. They come from both backgrounds. Rich or Poor.
They are the reason why there's inequality. Because they can't empathize with others. But insist that everyone caters to them.
That's a problem both economically. And for the general population.
We have to stop wasting resources on pacifying them. Prioritize the people who want to respect others and do their part.
The more we hesitate, the more leverage the bad guy has.
@@falconJB More educated people (all things being equal) lead to less geniuses because they will simply be made to conform to everyone else.
There are other factors that will need to go right for your opinion to be correct.
@@raylevi5343 Less education leads to more conformity not less.
@@falconJB true, but I think over education does that to a greater degree.
Less education generally means lower economic achievement in individuals and country, which means the path to success is more straightforward if you're a genius....all things being equal. Corruption is worse, but I think it has more impact than conformity.
Answer to the title, yes we can have more kids even in rich countries if the country stops the growing GDP addiction and give every citizen basic rights even to stuff like house education and reproductive labor.
We can handle a moderate population fall, especially if it happens at different times in different locations.
But a sharp drop isn't sustainable...
You think if there is a sharp drop humanity will go extinct?
"In the aftermath of the plague, the richest 10% of the population lost their grip on between 15% and 20% of overall wealth. This decline in inequality was long-lasting, as the richest 10% did not reach again the pre-Black Death level of control on overall wealth before the second half of the seventeenth century."
When birth rate falls below replacement level, it produces a very gradual drop in population. Only war or pandemics cause sharp population declines. So no worries.
"Neither more neither less a perfect blend of balance !"
Thankyou 🙏
There's this thought that hasn't been addressed: On a global scale there's too many people but each nation says that there's too few and want to reverse declining populations. So one side can't be right without the other being wrong.
It's because the total fertility rates are not evenly distributed. 2.1 kids per woman is considered replacement levels. Go to Wikipedia and search Total Fertility Rate. There is a map of the world showing what each country's rate is. Most of the world is near or below replacement level. Africa is the most glaring exception. Even formerly high population growth countries like India and Bangladesh have gotten to around replacement level. If Africa and few Middle Eastern countries can get to replacement levels, the global population will decline.
The problem with the current degrowth is, that the world isnt just "global".
Western countries are losing high skilled working forces, while afrika and india are growing with more tradiotional work forces.
This will lead to a lot of tensions in the next 50 years:
* Old people vs young people
* Immigrants vs locals
* authorian countries that feel like they have to react violently NOW, while they still have the numbers
* Failing social security systems
All this degrowth, in children or otherwise, packs way more dynamite, because people feel the are LOSING stuff.
And if even one country decides to go the other route (like i.e. china), it will just outpace the degrowth countries in the long run.
China is also experiencing degrowth.
Chinese citizens basically laughed at the CCP when it said they could have 3 children. Their response was "with what money?!"
India and Africa are going to be depopulating before long. Several low income nations are have birth rates below replacement level. It’s the natural state of the modern world.
China's situation illustrates your last 2 points, very well.
India is also having a problem. I saw a documentary the other day about how 41 percent of their population is below the age of 25 which makes it the largest young population in the world. This seems good at first, but the problem is a lot of young people are struggling to get jobs because the competition for any job even a bad job is too fierce, and it leads to unemployment. So even though they have a large young population it does them no good since these people can't make money and thus can't support government programs since they have no income to tax.
This is the problem these clowns who keep stressing people need to have kids are not addressing. Having an increase population size does you no good in supporting government social programs if that increase population doesn't have employment and income. With the rise of AI you will have high unemployment rates that will affect everybody including young people. No income means no funding for government social programs.
The real issue is the current capitalistic model cannot work if you don't tax the rich at a higher rate to support these programs. Of course, the rich will never agree to this and hence we are heading towards an eventual collapse of the system that cannot be saved.
"And now it's time to put kids in the Economics Explained Leaderboard"
Insert Stannis Baratheon line: "...fewer*"...
A bigger issue with the rise of older people consuming but not producing is how much more they consume (especially medical resources) and not produce due to poor health, especially at it relates to obesity.
Endocrine disruption caused by pesticides in modern agriculture is in my opinion one of the largest contributing factors to population decline.
Yes, chemicals in the environment are certainly not helping!
But there are more important factors. Must see document on this topic: Birthgap - A Childless World
It's a real eye opener!
Q: Do We Need More Or Less Children?
A: We live in a society
Less people = shorter line at the food bank
@@ctg4818 Better distribution - and reduced waste - of food would make a food bank obsolete. We have enough food to feed 10 billion people. It's just not distributed fairly.
@@Celis.C TY for that! I guess it turns out that capitalism isn't the super rational and efficient system its advertised to be after all. eh?
@@newagain9964 Never has been :/
It's a quick-result, damned-be-all kind of system.
@@Celis.C yup. And don’t forget. Capitalism always been a race to the bottom. If not for govt intervention….
So summarizing: we shouldn't be afraid of future population numbers. Low and high numbers have their unique advantages and disadvantages.
Quite the contrary. Steep sudden changes in demography could have catastrophic consequences. Especially steep decline or outright collapse. Changes should be slow and smooth.
No. Having less people is better.
@@AwesomeHairo yes
Surely it’s fewer children, unless they have become easily divisible.
If you just have smaller children you are having less children without having fewer. So clearly the solution is to have very small children so you can have less children while having a greater number of them./s
it's almost like an infinitely expanding economic system doesn't work on a finite planet
With every gain, there is also a loss. Everything has its price. Continual growth will be accompanied by a continual decline in something else. The price to be paid has largely been ignored by those distracted by the gains.
Same as with climat change...
"The question is not if we reach it, we will do so. The question is when and how many have to suffer along the way."
Its the same here in economics and birthrates.
Climate is always changing. It's a dynamic system not a static system. Are you expecting the same climate as today forever? It has been always changing throughout Earth's history and it will change in future, with or without human interference.
People need to adapt to it.
People live in extreme hot climate in Saudi Arabia to extreme cold in Siberia.
@@jirislavicek9954do you not understand the time scale in which changes happen?
Here's a thing: The ageing population is a mid term (20 years or so, after that having an equal birth to death rate will maintain the population) while the overpopulation is a long term, earth destroying problem and after seeing what happens when we're too much for the earth, we're gonna decide to have less population and we're gonna face a harder 20yr burden for looking after the elderly.
Everything is temporary but ''NOBODY COULD PREDICT THE FUTURE LEAST OF ALL THE ECONOMISTS'' is permanent
I think it would help if the education system was scrapped and a new system developed so that kids come out with a higher level of education at a younger age. Then the workforce increases and young people aren't lumped with a huge debt from attending university.
@@ooievaar6756 To ensure high living standards for everybody, a country needs to be immensely efficient and productive. This is why growth is needed. Without it, only a few can live well and the bottom will have lousy lives. Why do you think slavery is a thing of the past, at least in developed countries? It is not primarily because of a change in moral views, it is because efficiency and productivity has made it possible to sustain a society without slavery.
@@ronald3836 Your slavery take isn't even remotely accurate. The cotton gin was invented in 1793 or 94. Meanwhile slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment in 1865. Also, modern day slavery still exists.
@@TheRockroll2 Moral standards had to change, too. The point is they would not have changed without technological developments.
@@TheRockroll2 also, I am not trying to connect the abolition of slavery in the US to one particular invention. Slavery has existed in one form or another throughout history in all parts of the world because it was the only way to organise a society with no access to efficient labour. The lowest class necessarily had to be abused. Roman civilisation could not have existed without massive slavery. Today this is different, thanks to technology.
@@ronald3836 Dude, we still have legalized slavery for prisoners in America today, due to how the 13th amendment was phrased. Not to mention some other parts of the world. Your argument implies the mind numbingly huge level of excess for those on the top is "necessary".
It might help if employers would stop requiring unnecessary university degrees as a condition of employment.
the only way to protest them is don't create workers and consumers for these coporate filths
Extraterrestrial harvesting is a pipe dream. Not because it's not technically feasible or can't be economically viable.
It is because doing so doesn't resolve the root of our problem:
learning how to live prudently, responsibly and sustainability as societies and getting with other societies across the globe.
I think one big point missed in a video about birth rates is the availability of birth control as a factor. Simply put: less people that don’t want children are having children. That will (in the short run of several generations) decrease the birth rate at source. On my mother’s side of the family my grandparents had 11 children. Only 4 of those children had children themselves. Those 4 had 11 children between them. Of those 11, only 2 of them have children so far and 5 children between them. My grandparents, ~95 years after their birth had 11 children, 11 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren for 27 descendants so far. My rough calculation with a birth rate of 1.2 per person over 3 generations is that at this point they should be on track to 60
One thing I’m worried about is specialization in reverse. Where I work we’ve had the same people doing certain tasks for a long tjme and we’ve all gotten used to it, then a few people left and we all have to take on different responsibilities now. Also as labor inflation increases we could see companies that produce elastic demand products go out of business as people diverge limited resources to more essential goods
The likelihood of technological breakthroughs emerging isn’t just population, it’s also related to level of education. If population declines but the number of educated people rises, these breakthroughs become more common, not less.
What if by the time I shall retire, that won't be possible to do because there wouldn't be enough money in the economy to give retirees a decent pensions? I am quite convinced there will be a way greater need for youth than people realise. We will need them, but they won't be there simply because we never gave them a chance.
If I ever manage to find someone, I will definitely think about this, and not about affording more luxuries. If I find someone...
The resources are limited. With the rate of pollution and etc. We don't need more people, especially uneducated ones. We need a balanced number of people but it is for sure lower than human count now. The pensions is a problem because there was a baby boom after war and technologies evolved. If we don't give in and don't reproduce like rabbits after 40 years the baby boomers will all be dead and the graph will look equal with adequate number of pensioners made up from millennial and adequate number of zoomers and the next gen. More people is not an answer unless you send them too moon, we don't have enough even to feed ever growing population now and the biggest populations are in the worst countries ever, so they are very useless and uneducated. I honestly don't believe I ever will have pension, I am 26 and I am saving for my old age by my self with only legally required contributions be ause thous money will just dissappear on get frozen. I much better save up buy something and sell it when I age and make that my pension.
In total there is more than enough mone, if supply ceases it's a matter of distribution, not mass.
This is the largest problem our generation and the next generation may face. We may not have any wealth or resources to look after us properly by the time we get into our 80s and 90s. People in their 80s and 90s are already struggling because we don't have enough beds in hospitals and enough nursing and care staff to look after them. With a shrinking population due to lower growth rates this problem is only going to get 100x worse as economies shrink and there are even less resources to care for the elderly, the elderly being us in 50-70yrs time.
@@afthefragile totally agree.
@@beccyvc5743 yes especially the whole junk which makes more then 95% of the Western economy is such a waste of resources and without it in combination with automation we could have a much higher standard of living even with only 0,1 birth rate
Wondering how it is that having a smaller population would solve the housing crisis when it seems like yet another opportunity for the owning class to leverage their existing wealth to extort the majority for a necessity…
Less people means, every person has more say and has more voting power, also the importants of every one increases cause there are less people to replace them and also less supply of workers which caused higher wages for every one and creates lower inequality, not to forget that with less people there are less genius and therefore less people who can hook the system and change it for there profit or in other word less corruption and bribing.
I would argue that quality of life is more important than GDP. Sure, a certain GDP is needed to provide a good quality of life, but it should not be prioritized above the quality of life.
9:30 "We used basically no non-renewable resources to produce this video"
Ah, good to know that you have your own wind turbine on-site at your video editing and uploading facility that 100% renewably covered all the kilowatt-hours of electricity that your computer and graphics card used when you were editing and rendering the video. :P
What I’ve noticed is that people my age early 20s that aren’t doing anything with their lives decided to have children and it’s scary
*fewer
I always think of 2 names whenever anyone starts talking of the dangers of over or under population; Thomas Malthus & Paul Ehrlich. I'm glad you mentioned both increased technology, like A.I. and the probability we will be able to mine the rest of the system relatively soon. It's a nice change from other commentators, "No Planet B". No one ever mentions the obvious about population growth though, if you take some of the economic burden off the working & middle class, they will have more children. If we had a system that prioritised the welfare of the majority instead of enriching a minority, a lot of our "problems" would disappear.
High population levels are in themselves one of the factors that discourage baby-making. The area of land that is within a reasonable commute of a CBD is finite. So increasing the population makes every square metre of that land more valuable and more expensive. Great for those who own land.
But the younger generation must pay more and more for less and less living space. Who wants to live all day with a baby and a toddler, in a rented box high up in a big pile of little boxes.
How exactly would having less people solve the housing crisis? It's not like we've run out of space or resources for houses, having less people wouldn't just magically make houses more affordable.
I guess if we use all the old houses around now it might help temporarily, but people will need new houses eventually.