[HN Gopher] Baby shortfall is so bad that the labor shortage wil...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Baby shortfall is so bad that the labor shortage will last for
       years
        
       Author : doener
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2022-11-18 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fortune.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fortune.com)
        
       | yamtaddle wrote:
       | Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're
       | not rich. As in, it'll all but completely kill any hope of a
       | decent retirement. And if you get unlucky (as far as the kid's
       | health) it's like winning a reverse-lottery ticket that condemns
       | you to lifelong poverty. Except the odds of that happening are
       | _way_ better than hitting a lotto jackpot.
       | 
       | I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social
       | safety net can't be all of the solution, but I know an awful lot
       | of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to
       | have more of them, but it's such a bonkers-bad financial decision
       | that they can't bring themselves to do it. That is, I'm pretty
       | sure there's a lot of desire in the US to have more kids, but
       | you're punished so badly for it that people avoid it anyway. I
       | think fixing our healthcare system and improving our public
       | pension scheme to something better than "if you have to rely on
       | it, you're probably fucked" would help a _ton_.
        
         | dmm wrote:
         | > Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if
         | you're not rich.
         | 
         | Not having kids will create other problems for retirees.
         | Retirement is fundamentally the working supporting the retired.
         | In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree in the US.
         | Today there are three and by 2030 there will be two. Three to
         | two may not sound like a lot but that's a 50% increase.
         | 
         | Retirement is going to be way, way more expensive in the
         | future.
         | 
         | > so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution
         | 
         | Total fertility(# of kids per woman) is falling basically
         | everywhere and nobody has found a way to increase it once it
         | starts falling.
         | 
         | That doesn't mean a better social safety net is a bad idea but
         | I don't think increasing fertility is great argument for it.
        
         | rayiner wrote:
         | This sounds like one of those fatfire tropes that's not true.
         | See, e.g., all the old people I know who have kids.
        
         | labrador wrote:
         | I'm retired and I'd be looking for options like Canada's
         | voluntary euthanasia program if I didn't have my adult
         | children. It's surprising to me how meaningless money has
         | become now that I am old and lacking the energy to enjoy it.
         | I'm grateful I still have something to live for.
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | Right, the in-hindsight value may make it worth it, but when
           | you're 25 or 30 or 35 and start to run the numbers on the
           | terrible shadow having a kid will cast on your future savings
           | and then realize opportunity cost makes it even worse... it
           | can be hard to see that less-quantifiable perspective
           | clearly.
           | 
           | (for the record, I have some kids, but _damn_ can I ever
           | understand why people choose not to, even when they do want
           | them)
        
             | labrador wrote:
             | > start to run the numbers
             | 
             | The problem is at a young age you don't know the important
             | things to include in your formulas or how to value them.
             | What's it going to cost to pay someone to make decisions
             | for you when you start having trouble making them for
             | yourself? It's going to cost a lot to set that up with
             | someone trustworthy ahead of time. If you've done a halfway
             | decent job of raising your kids they will do that for free
             | and you don't even have to set it up. They will be watching
             | you and making sure you are ok. They will do it because
             | they love you, not because you are paying them.
        
           | toomuchtodo wrote:
           | Kids have no obligation to provide elder care though, and
           | estrangement rates are material.
           | 
           | https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-
           | many-...
        
             | labrador wrote:
             | Right. There are no guarantees when calculating the cost
             | benefits of having kids. The biggest risk in having kids is
             | not financial in my opinion. The biggest risk is that they
             | will bring you an enormous amount of suffering, say by
             | becoming drug addicts and committing suicide. I took the
             | risk and it paid off for me. All I'm offering here is a
             | counter argument.
        
       | rjprins wrote:
       | So many problems are created because of the huge number of people
       | on earth. A shrinking population is only bad for people with a
       | vested interest in growth; investors and employers, but good for
       | everybody else, including future generations, the climate, and
       | nature.
        
         | kmlx wrote:
         | > A shrinking population is only bad for people with a vested
         | interest in growth; investors and employers, but good for
         | everybody else
         | 
         | a shrinking population is a disaster overall. productivity goes
         | down, more elderly, social services strained, smaller taxable
         | cohorts. the needs will still be there, the money and the
         | people to solve them won't.
        
           | matt3D wrote:
           | Productivity as we currently measure it, yes.
           | 
           | It seems we're trending (hopefully) to a more sustainable
           | future. Consumerism as we know if today may not exist in the
           | near future. If the only thing we care about is producing
           | Food, Housing and Art/Culture; we will have plenty of people.
        
           | jmoak3 wrote:
           | Yeah exactly. What the original commentor is hoping for is a
           | reset to a previous point in time. Which would be nice in
           | many of ways they've outlined, but isn't possible. Imagine if
           | a large corrupted and bloated city could simply not be large,
           | corrupted, or bloated.
           | 
           | In real life we've seen when such a city loses people or
           | revenue, the trauma of the pullback is devastating and the
           | bloat and corruption do not simply go away. Detroit, 1970s
           | NYC after the suburban flight, and the people clinging to
           | shrinking regions of Japan come to mind.
           | 
           | As our countries have a population pullback wealth will
           | shrink, corners will be cut, innovation will slow, and likely
           | more coal than ever will be burned.
        
             | webdood90 wrote:
             | Let it burn. I'm not bringing kids into this mess.
             | 
             | Climate change, war, pollution. An endless list of problems
             | due to humanity's greed. There is no changing the
             | trajectory at this point. Human's are in denial about our
             | future but we've already laid our beds.
        
               | Ancalagon wrote:
               | I believe the phrase is "made our beds" FYI.
               | 
               | No opinion one way or the other with regards to kids/no
               | kids. Just thought I'd point it out :)
        
           | Qem wrote:
           | *more unassisted elderly.
        
         | tbihl wrote:
         | Fewer people means less specialization. If you lose a billion
         | people, recognize that you're not losing the billion poorest
         | people, but rather a distribution that skews rich. When
         | populations are declining, a lot of the things we thought were
         | as sure as gravity turn out to be the fun parts of
         | cryptocurrency bubbles: infrastructure maintenance; ever-
         | increasing division of labor, specialization, and the global
         | development initiatives and technologically advanced low-carbon
         | energy research those entail; people determined to protect
         | trees and wildlife; and all pensions, home value trends, and
         | fiat currencies that depend on growth to obscure.
         | 
         | Everyone has a vested interest in growth. Unfortunately, many
         | wealthy people have short-term (single lifetime) interests in
         | the reverse.
        
         | tsol wrote:
         | >investors and employers
         | 
         | When retirement is tied up in stocks for the majority of
         | Americans, everyone is an investor.
        
       | JoeAltmaier wrote:
       | Automation will make up much of the gap.
        
       | bediger4000 wrote:
       | This is good. All the changes after the Black Death lowered
       | Europe's population were the end of the medieval world and the
       | beginning of the Enlightenment.
       | 
       | Lot's of exciting changes in store!
        
         | anonymouskimmer wrote:
         | The plague killed people of all ages, it didn't just reduce the
         | relative proportion of young people.
        
       | poxwole wrote:
       | Wonderful, workers will have more power
        
       | notadev wrote:
       | Stop overthinking it. Settle down and have kids. I know no one
       | else will give you this advice, because it's generally bad
       | advice, but seriously...just start trying to make the baby and
       | let nature do it's thing. If you wait for the perfect time, it
       | may never arrive. Or when it does, you'll regret having waited so
       | long. Nothing in my life has been as worthwhile as raising my
       | children. It's not always easy, you have to work on resolving
       | conflicts between siblings or you and your kids (teens amirite?)
       | and you'll have to think of more than just yourself in pretty
       | much any decision you make, and everything has extra steps. It
       | sounds like a pain, but I wish I could do it 4 more times! My
       | mother had me at 16 and thankfully I survived. I'm in a better
       | position but not by any means well off or able to stop working,
       | but I am happy with my lot. I would definitely say make sure you
       | are a functional adult and in a relationship with someone you are
       | going to be forced to deal with for at least 18. Aside from that,
       | let the adventure begin!
        
         | notch656a wrote:
         | It being "worth it" is not really a given though.
         | 
         | I'm also a parent and although I fully execute my duty to the
         | best of my abilities in the interest of the child I never found
         | it to be particularly advantageous position to be in. You're
         | basically on-call constantly for an often rote and laborious
         | task and there is no guarantee you're going to enjoy it. If you
         | do it well nobody (except if you're very luck the child) gives
         | a fuck and if you fail or have remarkably bad luck you end up
         | in prison. I doubt I'm the only one that just tries to enjoy it
         | to the extent to keep my sanity, for the same reason I would
         | try to keep smiling while in prison.
         | 
         | My personal advice is if someone has an enjoyable life now and
         | don't absolutely have to have children, stop and think hard
         | about the fact you may turn a lifestyle you enjoy into a
         | responsibility you can't back out of.
        
       | blahblah1234567 wrote:
        
       | black_13 wrote:
        
       | rayiner wrote:
       | I hate the argument we can make up for labor shortfalls with
       | immigrants. Chuck Schumer says "we have a population that's not
       | reproducing on its own."
       | https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/communi...
       | 
       | He says we can fix that with immigrants. But if there is
       | something causing people to not want to "reproduce," it seems
       | like that needs to be fixed. Otherwise, you're just shifting the
       | burden of dealing with whatever that is onto immigrants trying to
       | raise their families here. Like, I'm glad I'm raising my kids
       | here instead of in Bangladesh. But it's a lonely and isolating
       | here in comparison to the way it is back home.
        
         | ido wrote:
         | It's not just "here" though, birth-rates are dropping worldwide
         | with economic development.
        
         | theandrewbailey wrote:
         | Meanwhile, there's lots of unemployed people in small towns,
         | homeless are filling our cities, and most jobs that can be had
         | pay little. Adding a never ending stream of immigrants to that
         | mix feels like pouring gas on a fire.
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | And we're currently deliberately trying to curb upward
           | pressure on wages and increase the unemployment rate. While
           | others cry about a labor shortage but apparently conveniently
           | forget how market signals work when it's costing _them_
           | money. Go figure.
        
         | notch656a wrote:
         | The cost and regulation of raising children is much lower
         | overseas. It's rational that the US would be a net consumer of
         | children and some of these other nations are net producers of
         | children. Comparative advantage.
         | 
         | And I do mean consume. These adult immigrants pay taxes into
         | the US without having benefitted from US taxpayer provided K-12
         | education themselves, and we get to consume their labor without
         | having contributed to their upbringing.
         | 
         | It's honestly shocking people have kids at all in the US. Any
         | random chucklhead can call and make up whatever they like to
         | CPS. If you get divorced, you can actually be thrown in debtors
         | prison if you can't come up with a certain amount even if you
         | never even spent close to that amount on the child when you
         | were married (see American dude who was taken hostage while
         | contracted in Iraq, he was imprisoned upon return because he
         | didn't pay CS while being a hostage to terrorists). If you let
         | the kid walk to the park or home you may end up with criminal
         | charges, nevermind both parents need to be busy at work to
         | provide the standard of care CPS requires to not take away the
         | children. And if you're a woman in some states and you find out
         | the kid has debilitating disease you may be forced to go all
         | the way to term knowing you're going to wreck their life and
         | your own.
        
         | nine_zeros wrote:
         | I, for one, would love to see more nurses, doctors, elder care
         | workers. We should want more of these workers, not less. One
         | could argue that AMA needs to be forced to increase the number
         | of workers in these fields and reduce occupational liability
         | for healthcare workers. But even that will fall short of what
         | is required in greying America today. If you want real world
         | evidence of this, look at Canada which is frantically trying to
         | get immigrants because their elderly population has no one to
         | take care of them.
         | 
         | Making people reproduce will take a wholesale change in the
         | American way of life. This would include wholesale changes in
         | food, healthcare, health insurance, housing, inequality and a
         | general well-being of humanity. One party in our country is
         | actively attempting to reduce liberties (this party is red in
         | color if this is not obvious), which makes living in this
         | country a precarious position.
         | 
         | As an older child-free millennial, I am living the scenario
         | described in the article. I can assure you that my life path
         | hasn't been easy for the first 35 years. I have zero interest
         | in making my life even more difficult for the remaining 35, for
         | the sake of society.
         | 
         | Make healthcare easy, then we'll talk. Until then, I thank
         | immigrants in America.
        
           | notch656a wrote:
           | Well the incentives have also shifted.
           | 
           | Long ago your kids were like a retirement policy.
           | 
           | Now society says that's bad. You can't and shouldn't have
           | kids to provide for your own future. No the kids are there,
           | in the ultimate hypocrisy, to provide _for everyone elses
           | future_ via compulsory taxes funding social programs. So
           | everyone else benefits from your raising them, while you
           | disproportionately shoulder the costs, creating a massive
           | "free rider" problem.
        
             | nine_zeros wrote:
             | > No the kids are there, in the ultimate hypocrisy, to
             | provide for everyone elses future
             | 
             | I don't know why this is being downvoted. If you listen to
             | any republican biased radio/TV, you'd hear people blaming
             | young people all the time. It's like they hate me for not
             | having children BECAUSE it reduces the size of the labor
             | force.
             | 
             | Sorry republicans. I ain't bringing any kids to this world
             | to serve YOU.
        
               | rayiner wrote:
               | The working age labor force serves everyone, not just
               | "republicans." You also need working age people to pay
               | taxes and provide the government services democrats want.
               | If native born democrats won't have them, then when they
               | consume services in retirement, they'll be free riding on
               | republicans and immigrants.
        
               | nine_zeros wrote:
               | I agree that working age labor force serves everyone. But
               | it is only "Republicans" who want to impose rules on
               | people so that they have birth. If you truly believe in
               | liberty, you also agree to let people live their lives.
               | 
               | > If native born democrats won't have them, then when
               | they consume services in retirement, they'll be free
               | riding on republicans and immigrants.
               | 
               | No one is preventing Republicans from having as many
               | babies as they want. Go ahead. Make 100s of them and
               | train them to be skilled. If they can't, I am happy with
               | immigrants filling the gap. The real question is, why do
               | Republicans feel the need to ask "others" to do what they
               | want instead of doing it themselves?
        
           | rayiner wrote:
           | But the immigrants have to come here and deal with all those
           | problems. (On top of dealing with the fear our children will
           | also end up "child-free.") The fact that they will put up
           | with doesn't seem like a great reason not to fix the problem.
        
             | nine_zeros wrote:
             | > The fact that they will put up with doesn't seem like a
             | great reason not to fix the problem.
             | 
             | Like I said, the happy-path lifestyle structure in America
             | is not suited to reproduction. Sure we must try to fix the
             | problem but we all know it's not going to happen soon. I am
             | likely to die before significant changes happen.
             | 
             | Until then, I still want skilled labor in the right places.
             | I will continue to welcome immigrants who fill that gap.
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | blahblah1234567 wrote:
        
         | mikem170 wrote:
         | Declining birth rates are happening everywhere in the world,
         | not just in the christian liberal west for the reasons you
         | gave. The primary causes seem to be urbanization and women's
         | access to education and birth control. It makes sense to have
         | more kids living on a farm, not so much in a city.
         | 
         | This will drive lots of changes, both cultural and economic. Is
         | it a good thing or a bad thing? Probably depends on who you
         | ask. Are lot of people scared of these changes? Definitely.
        
         | advisedwang wrote:
         | More info if anyone wants to understand this in depth:
         | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-great-replacem...
        
       | anonymouskimmer wrote:
       | "the number of people of working age (15 to 65) is set to decline
       | in the coming years."
       | 
       | 1) In richer countries with better working conditions "working
       | age" can be, and for many people has already been, extended into
       | the 70s and 80s. "Working age" and 'retirement' are new concepts,
       | not a fixed part of being human.
       | 
       | 2) While so-called 'unemployment' is low, labor force
       | participation rate has continued to drop:
       | https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...
       | Broken out by age: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-
       | force-particip...
       | 
       | Both of these things mean that there is still a lot of room to
       | accommodate a decreasing "working age" population.
        
       | aliqot wrote:
       | This reminds me of when you get 2 or 3 little mosquito fish in
       | your tank, soon you have 50 in a few weeks and you're wondering
       | what you're going to do. Eventually the brood sizes get smaller
       | and the tank finds its own equilibrium.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-18 23:02 UTC)