Demographics decline - sustainability or catastrophe?

[Morning Glory]

Yep, women are tired of being shit on and we are opting out.  I know I did.  Stop shitting on women and we might decide to have kids.  But we are rational human beings, not crazy people at the whims of some biological clock.  We see the deck is stacked against us and say no thanks.

I agree with you but Its not just women that decide to have kids. The decline in birth rates is not because women decided they didn't want to get shit on its because families decided they couldn't or didn't want kids.

The abortion situation in the U.S. is terrible and unethical to say the least. There are already measurable increases in birth rates in states that have enacted strict abortion bans post the overturning of Roe, thats not good, those children's parents either cant or dont want to raise them.

Honestly its really terrible to think that families are forgoing the opportunity to have kids because of things like availability of childcare. I think that this will change as everyone agrees that more kids are needed and wanted and they have a net benefit in terms of cost, from an economists perspective. This is just an accounting problem.

I would hate to have to look this up, but I remember reading that the number of unwanted and abused children went down after Roe versus Wade, and later so did the crimes children from those backgrounds often commit when they grow to late adolescence.

In this case the carrot is way more useful than the stick.  Don't force women to have children.  Give them support and give their children support - good birth control, good maternal care while pregnant, good affordable daycare, good opportunities for outside activities that will let the children grow as people, good and affordable education.  Then they may actually have those 2 children, when they are older and more established.  And those 2 children are more likely to be productive embers of society.

It was a chapter in the first Freakonomics book IIRC.

[afox]

By the way. Older people vote, older people are politicians and older people ultimately decide if there will be funding for things like childcare. Older people see kids as not benefiting them much however they are wrong. "Kids" are the ones that do everything for older people from healthcare to working on their houses. Older people are much more reliant on children than younger people. Stating this would probably help bolster funding for children and families. Stating things like kids are an economic and environmental nightmare is not going to help the situation.

[Posthumane]

There are a number of countries in eastern europe (eg. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary) which have had flat or slightly decreasing populations for the last three decades, and some for much longer than that. My observations from visiting those places and talking to people that live there is that the people there are doing fine and are optimistic about the future. Clearly there are factors that contribute to this with a greater strength than population growth/decline.

[afox]

Imports.

It's a different story when globally resources are scarce

[Posthumane]

Care to elaborate on that? I'm not sure what imports you're talking about.

You stated earlier that the problem of population decline is that less people are available for basic services and the quality of those services decreases. I have not seen that in the countries I mentioned; in fact each time I visit Poland I'm amazed at how it is constantly improving. When a population increases or decreases in size the number of people available for services increases or decreases, but so does the number of people needing services. As long as a decline is not overly rapid, it does not cause a large age imbalance.
Of the countries that I've visited, the one that had the biggest problem with public services actually had the lowest median age (in the teens).

[RetiredAt63]

By the way. Older people vote, older people are politicians and older people ultimately decide if there will be funding for things like childcare. Older people see kids as not benefiting them much however they are wrong. "Kids" are the ones that do everything for older people from healthcare to working on their houses. Older people are much more reliant on children than younger people. Stating this would probably help bolster funding for children and families. Stating things like kids are an economic and environmental nightmare is not going to help the situation.

In the US older people are politicians.  As in, I can't believe how old they are!  Not always elsewhere.  Our Prime Minister is getting old, he is in his 50s.  The leaders of the two main opposition parties are in their 40s.

Lots of older people support kids, we realize the importance of our youth, their lives, their education, and the importance of things that support their parents.  Not to mention that for a lot of us those are our children and grandchildren we are talking about.  Of course we want things to be good for them.  And their friends and classmates and really just everyone.

Maybe you are seeing what is happening in the US and not as much what is happening elsewhere?

[vand]

There are a number of countries in eastern europe (eg. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary) which have had flat or slightly decreasing populations for the last three decades, and some for much longer than that. My observations from visiting those places and talking to people that live there is that the people there are doing fine and are optimistic about the future. Clearly there are factors that contribute to this with a greater strength than population growth/decline.

Bulgaria is probably the most extreme case of long term negative population growth. 

I can't pretend to say I speak for for average Bulgarian national, but the problems are self evident when the young don't want to stay and move abroad if they can.

It is true that this has been ongoing for 30 years and it appears to be much more of a managed decline rather than breaking down of society, but Bulgaria is already the poorest EEC country, and they probably didn't have much in the way of social safety nets or instructure to maintain in the first place. If think if you transposed the demographics into a richer society where more obligations have been made by the government then I think it would be more difficult to maintain those promises.

[Log]

Some of the above discussion has me feeling slightly less worried about the pains of population decline. It’s like the distinction that Marx thought communism would be possible after a certain baseline level of wealth was achieved, but the only countries to ever try it were far below that level of prosperity, so what they were trying wasn’t communism at all, it was using centralized economic planning as a mode of economic development.

We’ve never seen population decline in a country with such abundant excess as many countries have today. Japan is probably our closest comparison, and they were much less rich when decline set in than the major developed economies of the world are today. While the Japanese people have certainly suffered due to the economic challenges of decline, and they are poorer in absolute terms than countries like the US, Japan is still chugging along quite well. No one would argue Japan is a basket case.

I suppose the Anglosphere countries are especially vulnerable to economic decline because of the unsustainable costs of suburban sprawl and car-dependent transportation networks. Denser infrastructure and other forms of transportation are just so much cheaper that it frees up a lot of a nation’s productivity to pay for rising healthcare and pension costs. And population decline might just solve that problem for us. At some level of population decline, we’ll decide that a federal bailout to repair a failing water system like Flint’s just isn’t worth it anymore.

This is really the long term implication of what Strong Towns talks about. We can prop up suburbia with wasteful spending when we’re so rich that we don’t even realize how rich we are. At some point though, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand alike will very likely be dotted with abandoned suburbs. See: ”We Are All Detroit.

I think some people dismiss Strong Towns and Chuck Marohn as a lunatic doomsayer, but in the long run population decline will certainly prove his argument true. Maybe exurbs in the most desirable cities will thrive for centuries to come. But a lot more of this country will end up looking like Appalachia or the Rust Belt. The silver lining is that what’s left might end up looking a lot more like Europe or Japan. As mentioned in the Paige Saunders video I linked previously, Canada is way ahead of the US on proactively embracing urbanism. I also think New Zealand is getting more serious about urban infill than Australia is, but they’re still not embracing biking and transit nearly as much as Canada is.

[roomtempmayo]

I think some people dismiss Strong Towns and Chuck Marohn as a lunatic doomsayer, but in the long run population decline will certainly prove his argument true. Maybe exurbs in the most desirable cities will thrive for centuries to come. But a lot more of this country will end up looking like Appalachia or the Rust Belt. The silver lining is that what’s left might end up looking a lot more like Europe or Japan.

At least prior to the pandemic, I strongly suspected that major cities in the United States would eventually look more or less like Paris, with a dense, highly gentrified core and thriving exurbs, but a ring of run down suburbs in the middle.

There's an article in the Atlantic right now called The Suburbs are a Ponzi Scheme that gets at the reasons why.  Density has inherent efficiencies if wealthy people are willing to impose heavy-handed law enforcement to prevent free riding.  And new suburbs have clustering and exclusive associational advantages.  But once the exclusivity breaks down in a suburb, they have most of the same problems as the urban core without the benefits of density.  They then become the bottom of the property ladder as 21st Century white flight guts them of resources just as their infrastructure needs major investment.

[Metalcat]

Canadians are also moving around quite a bit. A lot of East Coast aging communities are seeing massive influx of folks leaving high cost urban areas. So that's an interesting demographic change.

I happen to own property in one of the fastest growing areas of the country and a remarkable number of older Canadians are moving there, but the primary tax revenue in the area comes from property taxes. They are insanely high relative to house prices, but the house prices are insanely low compared to where people are moving from. So the buyers are driving up the housing prices, which are still a tenth of the prices where they're moving from, which is driving up the tax income for the city, even though the population moving in are largely retired. This is driving a huge amount of infrastructure investment.

It's been very, very interesting to watch what has been happening, seeing a "have not" province turn into a booming province with exploding population and now a massive budget surplus.

This is creating a lot of job, many in the energy sector, and attracting a huge amount of immigrants.

It happened so quickly a lot of Canadians don't even know it has happened. Who knows how it will play out with the interesting demographics at play, but it's certainly fascinating to watch in real time, especially as someone invested in the area.

[Log]

I think some people dismiss Strong Towns and Chuck Marohn as a lunatic doomsayer, but in the long run population decline will certainly prove his argument true. Maybe exurbs in the most desirable cities will thrive for centuries to come. But a lot more of this country will end up looking like Appalachia or the Rust Belt. The silver lining is that what’s left might end up looking a lot more like Europe or Japan.

At least prior to the pandemic, I strongly suspected that major cities in the United States would eventually look more or less like Paris, with a dense, highly gentrified core and thriving exurbs, but a ring of run down suburbs in the middle.

There's an article in the Atlantic right now called The Suburbs are a Ponzi Scheme that gets at the reasons why.  Density has inherent efficiencies if wealthy people are willing to impose heavy-handed law enforcement to prevent free riding.  And new suburbs have clustering and exclusive associational advantages.  But once the exclusivity breaks down in a suburb, they have most of the same problems as the urban core without the benefits of density.  They then become the bottom of the property ladder as 21st Century white flight guts them of resources just as their infrastructure needs major investment.

Yes I saw that article - found a section near the ending very frustrating to read. I'll quote:

Charles Marohn, whom Herold describes as “a moderate white conservative from Minnesota,” is the one to lay out Ferguson’s decline to him. According to Herold, Marohn had a hand in building suburbs, but he has since had an awakening. Marohn suggests that what’s happened in places such as Ferguson and Penn Hills is the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme. It’s “the development version of slash-and-burn agriculture,” he tells the author. “We build a place, we use up the resources, and when the returns start diminishing, we move on, leaving a geographic time bomb in our wake!”

This is a sprawling book, which is its virtue and the source of its occasional misfires. Five families are a lot to keep track of. I found myself at times having to flip back in the book to remember the contours of each family and their respective suburb. I wasn’t convinced that Herold needed all these people to make his point. So many of their stories echoed one another, and at times I simply wanted to hear more about the architects of America’s dream, especially those like Marohn who have apparently become disillusioned with their grand vision. I so wanted to know more about Marohn. Who is he exactly? How did he help build America’s suburbs? I wonder if this isn’t a missed opportunity, given that Marohn is helping Herold make sense of what he’s witnessing.

So the author of the book seemingly stole his entire thesis from Chuck Marohn/Strong Towns, then used Chuck as a source in the book but deliberately obfuscated who he is and the decade and a half of advocacy work he's done. Then this writer for the Atlantic reads the book muses, "who is this Chuck Marohn guy??" but then apparently couldn't be bothered with a google search?

I doubt the writer of the article would be that obtuse, so instead I'm left suspecting the editors at The Atlantic made him cut a section drawing attention to Marohn and Strong Towns. I generally love the Atlantic, but between instances like this and the whole recent Substack controversy, it increasingly seems they're on a deliberate (and, imo, futile) campaign to discredit and invalidate blogs and independent media.

ETA: Of course, my frustration is largely directed at the author of the book. Especially going out of his way to label Chuck a "moderate, white conservative," as if to discredit him to his target audience of good cookie-cutter liberals, so that he can take more credit for re-packaging Chuck's ideas. I'm all for the Strong Towns ideas reaching a wider audience, and I understand that some liberals find Chuck's presentation of these ideas unpalatable. But turning urbanism and suburban decline into more of a partisan culture-war issue than it already is does not help the problem.

[Cranky]

At a more basic level a declining population is about more than paying for entitlements and its more than an accounting problem.

The "wealth of a nation" and I dont just mean monetary wealth is fundamentally a representation of the countries human resources. Just as every company is what it is because of its employees every country is what it is because of its citizens. Its the citizens ability to create things and do things that creates wealth. With less people there is less creating and less doing, the countries capabilities to do just about anything suffers. This is reflected by businesses and the government being less productive, technological improvements slowing or even losing the knowledge to do what we could do before.

Maybe its better to think about like giving the intellectual capacity of the country/world a giant haircut, progress slows and hopefully doesn't start going backwards.

This is where how a nation uses its people is vastly more important than how many people it has.

For example, a society organized as Dark Ages Europe was organized made it impossible to create surpluses/growth or for people to reach their full potential, no matter how many millions of people the society grows to. There was no time to break away from low-efficiency hard labor, no option to obtain an education, no incentive to find better ways of doing things, no room for new ideas or leadership, and almost no opportunity for each generation of children to become anything more than a farm laborer. GDP per capita was less than a 2024 US dollar per day. Population growth or shrinkage (wars, plagues) did not change people's standard of living in the very long run because each average person was producing only the bare minimum necessary to meet their own needs. Adding a worker added a mouth to feed, which is all that worker produced. Subtracting a worker subtracted their mouth to feed, which didn't add any more work to anyone else. Society's efficiency at converting human talent and drive into economic output was near 0%.

It wasn't until the Enlightenment that a small handful of people started being able to develop their talents, leading to widening trade, technological innovations, growing literacy, improved decision-making structures, and expanded educational opportunities. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that productivity started increasing enough to create agricultural surpluses sufficient to subsidize manufacturing, infrastructure improvements, etc. Later, public education led to almost-universal literacy and a broad intellectual foundation for children from almost any background to become highly efficient specialists. Then the inclusion of women and minorities into the economy expanded societal productivity even further.

At each step, the economic surpluses grew and more of the population transferred from a hand-to-mouth existence to professional specialization, industrial scale production, and work activities in which productivity gains are possible (i.e. manufacturing, as opposed to pushing a plow). The key was to stop wasting human talent and to shift young people into work where their natural talents can be applied.

I'd suggest Western economies are maybe 30% efficient in this way. The vast majority of kids get the opportunity to obtain educations, but addiction, cultural dysfunction, untreated health and mental health issues, abuse/crime, minimal preschool educational options, the high price of specialist educations, the high price of changing professional direction, racism, gender roles, high costs of housing, healthcare and transportation, teenage pregnancy, and a host of other problems we are failing to solve mean that tens of millions of young people are not able to become as economically productive as they might otherwise be. If we saw that as a waste, and saw that as the problem, we'd be on track to grow through demographic graying.

If we could raise that hypothetical efficiency to, say, 35% it would offset a population decline of millions.

Historians don’t use the term Dark Ages much any more. There’s much more of a continuum historically than that suggests.

It also ignores the major technological developments of the Middle Ages, many of which are linked - the introduction of the stirrup, the development of better plows, the horse collar, the introduction of the three and four field system of crop rotation, methods for draining and reclaiming marginal land, harnessing wind and water power. Those things led to a substantial increase in the European population (which as I pointed out upthread is not easy to do) which was cut short by climate change and the ensuing plague years in the late 13th/early 14th centuries. Ironically enough those traumas set the stage for the Renaissance.

[afox]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

[Metalcat]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

Isn't quality of life expected to decrease due to environmental issues though?

If we're comparing apples to apples, isn't it kind of irrational to look at any system and expect sustained or increased quality of life??

Shouldn't we be comparing bad outcomes and asking which ones we can most readily adapt to??

[afox]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

Isn't quality of life expected to decrease due to environmental issues though?

If we're comparing apples to apples, isn't it kind of irrational to look at any system and expect sustained or increased quality of life??

Shouldn't we be comparing bad outcomes and asking which ones we can most readily adapt to??

Not possible to have your cake and eat it too? Can the planet support 8 billion people? I dont think anyone expects sustained population growth without environmental catastrophe but the US appears to be capable of supporting 300m people sustainably.

[RetiredAt63]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

Isn't quality of life expected to decrease due to environmental issues though?

If we're comparing apples to apples, isn't it kind of irrational to look at any system and expect sustained or increased quality of life??

Shouldn't we be comparing bad outcomes and asking which ones we can most readily adapt to??

Not possible to have your cake and eat it too? Can the planet support 8 billion people? I dont think anyone expects sustained population growth without environmental catastrophe but the US appears to be capable of supporting 300m people sustainably.

Is it? Or has it just outsourced the environmental pollution issues as it outsourced jobs and manufacturing?

Aren't there looming water supply issues in many parts of the US?  More people and agriculture than the local aquifers can support?  Those people are not living sustainably.  What about land loss as ocean levels rise?  I had the impression Florida is already having environmental issues.

[Metalcat]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

Isn't quality of life expected to decrease due to environmental issues though?

If we're comparing apples to apples, isn't it kind of irrational to look at any system and expect sustained or increased quality of life??

Shouldn't we be comparing bad outcomes and asking which ones we can most readily adapt to??

Not possible to have your cake and eat it too? Can the planet support 8 billion people? I dont think anyone expects sustained population growth without environmental catastrophe but the US appears to be capable of supporting 300m people sustainably.

Is it? Or has it just outsourced the environmental pollution issues as it outsourced jobs and manufacturing?

Aren't there looming water supply issues in many parts of the US?  More people and agriculture than the local aquifers can support?  Those people are not living sustainably.  What about land loss as ocean levels rise?  I had the impression Florida is already having environmental issues.

And how many threads have we had about the economic impacts of climate change in the US? Concerns about coastal regions??

[deborah]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

[RetiredAt63]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

[ChpBstrd]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

[mistymoney]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

 

some companies already prorate salaries based on col where workers are. that thinking may expand and lessen the attractiveness of wfh in lcol areas.

[ChpBstrd]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

 
some companies already prorate salaries based on col where workers are. that thinking may expand and lessen the attractiveness of wfh in lcol areas.

Competition should fix that.

[Michael in ABQ]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

 
some companies already prorate salaries based on col where workers are. that thinking may expand and lessen the attractiveness of wfh in lcol areas.

Competition should fix that.

Yes, but that competition isn't going to come from within the US. Why pay $50/hour when someone with just as much talent is happy to accept $15/hour because they live in a cheaper location.

If your job can be done remotely, it can be done remotely by somebody outside the US at much lower cost - and it will be soon.

[Posthumane]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

Bulgaria's fertility rate is higher than that of Canada, Poland, Germany, Belgium. It's higher than the European average, and much higher than Japan. The population is declining much more rapidly than those other places because people are emigrating, which doesn't have any positive environmental effects. There is a low standard of living in Bulgaria, but that is what is causing the emigration rather than the other way around. It is slowly improving though; their per capita GDP has increased sixfold (from approx $2k USD to $12k USD) in the last two decades.

You still have not clarified how you think imports are holding off the workforce shortages that you predicted due to population decline in places like Poland.

[dang1]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

 
some companies already prorate salaries based on col where workers are. that thinking may expand and lessen the attractiveness of wfh in lcol areas.

Competition should fix that.

Yes, but that competition isn't going to come from within the US. Why pay $50/hour when someone with just as much talent is happy to accept $15/hour because they live in a cheaper location.

If your job can be done remotely, it can be done remotely by somebody outside the US at much lower cost - and it will be soon.

If it could be done for $15, maybe it was not optimal at $50.

Now all those $15 workers start hankering for – say. better health-improving pharmaceuticals, with to them- their improved salaries, thus creating more jobs for -say, $100 drug researchers

If $100 researchers can achieve the same results 10X faster than $30 researchers, then better with higher compensated researchers.

[vand]

Yes, it is a peculiarity and irony that when overall population is falling the trend towards urbanisation accelerates.  So you have small towns and villages that have much lower populations, while cities and large urban centers see their numbers still growing.

So the choices for young people are- suck it up and move to the city, where there are jobs and opportunities, but living costs and cost of raising your own family is extortionate, or- remain in Smallville, enjoy a simpler life but don't expect to have the same career opportunities that your buddy in NY has.

Anecdotally, friend of mine has taken the life decision to quit London with his wife and 8month old and go live a simpler life in the German countryside. The difficulties of being in in a large city outweigh the benefits when you have a young family - You can't have it all, unsurprisingly, once there are kids in tow.

[Log]

Yes, it is a peculiarity and irony that when overall population is falling the trend towards urbanisation accelerates.  So you have small towns and villages that have much lower populations, while cities and large urban centers see their numbers still growing.

So the choices for young people are- suck it up and move to the city, where there are jobs and opportunities, but living costs and cost of raising your own family is extortionate, or- remain in Smallville, enjoy a simpler life but don't expect to have the same career opportunities that your buddy in NY has.

Anecdotally, friend of mine has taken the life decision to quit London with his wife and 8month old and go live a simpler life in the German countryside. The difficulties of being in in a large city outweigh the benefits when you have a young family - You can't have it all, unsurprisingly, once there are kids in tow.

Ironic sure, but definitely the opposite of peculiar. Urban agglomeration effects drive economic development. And then higher land values and small apartments are almost certainly one of the causal factors of declining birth rates (among many others).

Hence YIMBYism: build such tall towers as to overcome the underlying land values. Drive the price of urban housing down so that people can afford BIG apartments, and we might have something of a softer landing with population decline. Extra bonus: those urban people have lower carbon emissions per capita.

[Michael in ABQ]

Our family went for a walk in an open space area here in Albuquerque along the river. Over an hour or so we saw 40-50 people on but not a single child. Lots of dogs, but no kids. Plenty of couples in their 20s and 30s but virtually all of them had a dog or two instead of kids. When we got back to the parking lot there was one woman with a child and a dog at a picnic table next to the parking lot, but that was it.

It would be interesting to see a graph of households with dogs vs households with kids and I bet the former would be up and to the right while the latter would be down and to the right if graphed over the last few decades.

[RetiredAt63]

Our family went for a walk in an open space area here in Albuquerque along the river. Over an hour or so we saw 40-50 people on but not a single child. Lots of dogs, but no kids. Plenty of couples in their 20s and 30s but virtually all of them had a dog or two instead of kids. When we got back to the parking lot there was one woman with a child and a dog at a picnic table next to the parking lot, but that was it.

It would be interesting to see a graph of households with dogs vs households with kids and I bet the former would be up and to the right while the latter would be down and to the right if graphed over the last few decades.

That would be interesting.  However your visual assessment could be massively biased.  The families with small children may not be there  The families with older children may be at children's activities.  People with dogs are going to like that kind of venue as a great place to walk the dog.

Here realtor.ca MLS listings have a section for demographics, so you can see the kind of neighbourhood you are thinking of buying in.  Does your MLS have something similar?  For a nice house (CAN $850K, near Toronto which is super expensive) in a residential neighbourhood sort of near me, the kind that families like, the neighbourhood is

68.3% Single family
0.5% Multi family
25% Single person
6.2% Multi person

Population By Age Group (%)

0 to 4  4.2%

5 to 9  4.4%

10 to 14  4.8%

15 to 19  5.7%

20 to 34  20.6%

35 to 49  21.4%

50 to 64  22%

65 to 79  13.8%

80 and over  3.1%

So lots of kids.

[deborah]

Certainly figures in Australia seem to support your claim. Households with dogs up several percentage points over the last 10 years, while households with children down 12% over the last 20 years.

[RetiredAt63]

Certainly figures in Australia seem to support your claim. Households with dogs up several percentage points over the last 10 years, while households with children down 12% over the last 20 years.

I haven't looked about the dogs, but children definitely down here.  I wonder how much the delay of having children is affecting the numbers, and if there will be a slowing of the decline as women reach their new later childbearing age.  DD's cohort, including my sister's kids, seem to mostly be having the replacement 2.  But they are all marrying later and having kids later, so that definitely shifts things.

Re Michael in A's comment, I was basically pointing out that his location was a bad place to be drawing conclusions from about kids.  Certainly a good place to be seeing the increase in dogs.

[ChpBstrd]

Certainly figures in Australia seem to support your claim. Households with dogs up several percentage points over the last 10 years, while households with children down 12% over the last 20 years.

I haven't looked about the dogs, but children definitely down here.  I wonder how much the delay of having children is affecting the numbers, and if there will be a slowing of the decline as women reach their new later childbearing age.  DD's cohort, including my sister's kids, seem to mostly be having the replacement 2.  But they are all marrying later and having kids later, so that definitely shifts things.

Re Michael in A's comment, I was basically pointing out that his location was a bad place to be drawing conclusions from about kids.  Certainly a good place to be seeing the increase in dogs.

Pets are substitutes for human relationships, which grow more difficult to maintain by the day. A dog will give you attention whenever you want it, but a spouse or a kid just stare at their phone all day, contributing nothing to your life.

[Metalcat]

Certainly figures in Australia seem to support your claim. Households with dogs up several percentage points over the last 10 years, while households with children down 12% over the last 20 years.

I haven't looked about the dogs, but children definitely down here.  I wonder how much the delay of having children is affecting the numbers, and if there will be a slowing of the decline as women reach their new later childbearing age.  DD's cohort, including my sister's kids, seem to mostly be having the replacement 2.  But they are all marrying later and having kids later, so that definitely shifts things.

Re Michael in A's comment, I was basically pointing out that his location was a bad place to be drawing conclusions from about kids.  Certainly a good place to be seeing the increase in dogs.

Pets are substitutes for human relationships, which grow more difficult to maintain by the day. A dog will give you attention whenever you want it, but a spouse or a kid just stare at their phone all day, contributing nothing to your life.

And with that, you win *most depressing post of the day*!

[mistymoney]

There are certainly a lot of ghost towns in Australia. As people have moved from the country to the city, many towns have a lower population than they had a generation ago, and have difficulty hanging on to the services they once had (banks, schools, stores, police stations…). I’m sure this is happening in other anglophone countries too, but perhaps not as much, because we have such small towns.

It's happening here too.  Small towns lose the post office or the only grocery store.  Young people leave home for College or University and never come back, because there are not that many jobs in a small town.  Our cites keep growing and our small town keep shrinking.

And of course one industry towns (especially one resource industry towns) are devastated when the industry leaves.  It can happen to large ones too - Smith Falls in Ontario was really hurt when the Hershey plant closed, and it was not a small town.

I predict the trend will be reversed by WFH jobs, utterly unaffordable urban markets, and more widespread internet access.

 
some companies already prorate salaries based on col where workers are. that thinking may expand and lessen the attractiveness of wfh in lcol areas.

Competition should fix that.

competition indeed - but which way?

[markbike528CBX]

Yes, it is a peculiarity and irony that when overall population is falling the trend towards urbanisation accelerates.  So you have small towns and villages that have much lower populations, while cities and large urban centers see their numbers still growing.

So the choices for young people are- suck it up and move to the city, where there are jobs and opportunities, but living costs and cost of raising your own family is extortionate, or- remain in Smallville, enjoy a simpler life but don't expect to have the same career opportunities that your buddy in NY has.

Anecdotally, friend of mine has taken the life decision to quit London with his wife and 8month old and go live a simpler life in the German countryside. The difficulties of being in in a large city outweigh the benefits when you have a young family - You can't have it all, unsurprisingly, once there are kids in tow.

There have been studies that proport that going to a bigger city means more wages etc.
This is where the notion of "Doubling the size of cities increases (variable) by 15%.

Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities
Luís M. A. Bettencourt,*† José Lobo,‡ Dirk Helbing,§ Christian Kühnert,§ and Geoffrey B. West*¶
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 24; 104(17): 7301–7306.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852329/

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/magazine/19Urban_West-t.html

I had heard the claim, but thanks to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31514/does-innovation-or-productivity-per-resident-increase-by-15-percent-every-time   , I was able to find the source paper.


Urbanization has been going on at an increasing pace since the Industrial Revolution and maybe a little before.

[Just Joe]

This is all very interesting, especially Bulgaria. I could not find a positive story about Bulgaria or Japan's population declines. Shouldn't people be jumping for joy that the environment is saved and they no longer have to compete for resources?

I mean its not like people are starving to death and thats not a prediction but in general it does sound like the quality of life for residents has decreased.

The Wikipedia article sounds optimistic though.

[dang1]

Certainly figures in Australia seem to support your claim. Households with dogs up several percentage points over the last 10 years, while households with children down 12% over the last 20 years.

I haven't looked about the dogs, but children definitely down here.  I wonder how much the delay of having children is affecting the numbers, and if there will be a slowing of the decline as women reach their new later childbearing age.  DD's cohort, including my sister's kids, seem to mostly be having the replacement 2.  But they are all marrying later and having kids later, so that definitely shifts things.

Re Michael in A's comment, I was basically pointing out that his location was a bad place to be drawing conclusions from about kids.  Certainly a good place to be seeing the increase in dogs.

Pets are substitutes for human relationships, which grow more difficult to maintain by the day. A dog will give you attention whenever you want it, but a spouse or a kid just stare at their phone all day, contributing nothing to your life.

No pets of our own, though a neighbor’s cat hangs out w/ us more than owner, lol

My wife does massages my aching muscles, she cook delicious food.

Over Thanksgiving weekend, my son, working on his masters in ecology, school several hours away, gave me a tour of his study area- restoration of native grass after wildfire. Glad for his animated lecture on invasive plants.

Maybe people who find it difficult to maintain human relationships, are just not good in maintaining human relationships. Maybe people who stare at phone all day, are just not verbal people, not people who"talk too much and never shut up"  If they contribute nothing to your life, time to be with people who do.

[dang1]

Yes, it is a peculiarity and irony that when overall population is falling the trend towards urbanisation accelerates.  So you have small towns and villages that have much lower populations, while cities and large urban centers see their numbers still growing.
..

There have been studies that proport that going to a bigger city means more wages etc.
..

more wages, more cost of living

[dang1]

Cities that are adding population are building more single-family housing, whereas cities that are losing population are building multi-family housing in large buildings
https://www.ppic.org/blog/large-cities-lose-population-even-as-they-add-new-housing/

[Log]

Cities that are adding population are building more single-family housing, whereas cities that are losing population are building multi-family housing in large buildings
https://www.ppic.org/blog/large-cities-lose-population-even-as-they-add-new-housing/

Correlation/causation issue. People are getting priced out of cities that are land-constrained, and heading to cities that have room to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. That's terrible for the environment on many levels, so it shouldn't be seen as a success story that those cities are growing. It's a story of the failure of expensive cities that they're taking so long to wake up to the problem and fix their regulatory barriers that have made housing so expensive as to price people out in the first place.

[dang1]

Cities that are adding population are building more single-family housing, whereas cities that are losing population are building multi-family housing in large buildings
https://www.ppic.org/blog/large-cities-lose-population-even-as-they-add-new-housing/

Correlation/causation issue. People are getting priced out of cities that are land-constrained, and heading to cities that have room to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. That's terrible for the environment on many levels, so it shouldn't be seen as a success story that those cities are growing. It's a story of the failure of expensive cities that they're taking so long to wake up to the problem and fix their regulatory barriers that have made housing so expensive as to price people out in the first place.

people avoiding more crime
"higher rates of all types of violent crime in areas of high-density residential land"
https://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html

[afox]

∆∆∆

That's interesting. Not too surprising. I might add that it's easier to save and reach financial independence living in a single family home with full control over expenses vs. a multifamily building with an HOA and forced service costs which are out of the owners control. I have never lived with an HOA and don't plan to cuz I'm thrifty and resourceful and can do it better myself for less money and I can turn a shithole into a very valuable and desirable property mainly with little investment.

[Metalcat]

∆∆∆

That's interesting. Not too surprising. I might add that it's easier to save and reach financial independence living in a single family home with full control over expenses vs. a multifamily building with an HOA and forced service costs which are out of the owners control. I have never lived with an HOA and don't plan to cuz I'm thrifty and resourceful and can do it better myself for less money and I can turn a shithole into a very valuable and desirable property mainly with little investment.

Yes, if you can do all of the work yourself, this is true. However, I've lived in two condo complexes where the discount of scaled work has been exceptionally good value for maintenance services. I'm continually impressed with how far my condo fee dollars go in terms of services and amenities.

Granted, I'm disabled and can only do a limited amount of work myself. I can't replace exterior doors, a roof, do lead abatement, repair concrete, replace plumbing stacks, reline a pool, etc, etc.

In aging communities a lot of older folks also can't do that kind of work, so the economy of scale for maintenance/repairs offers a lot of benefit.

[ChpBstrd]

∆∆∆

That's interesting. Not too surprising. I might add that it's easier to save and reach financial independence living in a single family home with full control over expenses vs. a multifamily building with an HOA and forced service costs which are out of the owners control. I have never lived with an HOA and don't plan to cuz I'm thrifty and resourceful and can do it better myself for less money and I can turn a shithole into a very valuable and desirable property mainly with little investment.

Yes, if you can do all of the work yourself, this is true. However, I've lived in two condo complexes where the discount of scaled work has been exceptionally good value for maintenance services. I'm continually impressed with how far my condo fee dollars go in terms of services and amenities.

Granted, I'm disabled and can only do a limited amount of work myself. I can't replace exterior doors, a roof, do lead abatement, repair concrete, replace plumbing stacks, reline a pool, etc, etc.

In aging communities a lot of older folks also can't do that kind of work, so the economy of scale for maintenance/repairs offers a lot of benefit.

SFHs may be a poor living option for people who are older, disabled, or on a fixed income. Typical North American homes are built out of exterior materials that rot or wear out quickly, like asphalt roofs, plastic windows, exterior wood paneling or vinyl siding, . The interiors feature cheap, fragile materials like MDF cabinets, hollow doors, half inch sheetrock, outlets which quit holding plugs, and poorly built plumbing fixtures whose chrome flakes off in 12 years. They basically require a mild remod and a few thousand dollars worth of exterior work every 10-20 years. It's a ton of work to keep up with one of these things, so most elderly people neglect their SFHs.

[Metalcat]

∆∆∆

That's interesting. Not too surprising. I might add that it's easier to save and reach financial independence living in a single family home with full control over expenses vs. a multifamily building with an HOA and forced service costs which are out of the owners control. I have never lived with an HOA and don't plan to cuz I'm thrifty and resourceful and can do it better myself for less money and I can turn a shithole into a very valuable and desirable property mainly with little investment.

Yes, if you can do all of the work yourself, this is true. However, I've lived in two condo complexes where the discount of scaled work has been exceptionally good value for maintenance services. I'm continually impressed with how far my condo fee dollars go in terms of services and amenities.

Granted, I'm disabled and can only do a limited amount of work myself. I can't replace exterior doors, a roof, do lead abatement, repair concrete, replace plumbing stacks, reline a pool, etc, etc.

In aging communities a lot of older folks also can't do that kind of work, so the economy of scale for maintenance/repairs offers a lot of benefit.

SFHs may be a poor living option for people who are older, disabled, or on a fixed income. Typical North American homes are built out of exterior materials that rot or wear out quickly, like asphalt roofs, plastic windows, exterior wood paneling or vinyl siding, . The interiors feature cheap, fragile materials like MDF cabinets, hollow doors, half inch sheetrock, outlets which quit holding plugs, and poorly built plumbing fixtures whose chrome flakes off in 12 years. They basically require a mild remod and a few thousand dollars worth of exterior work every 10-20 years. It's a ton of work to keep up with one of these things, so most elderly people neglect their SFHs.

This is a good point too. The complexes I've lived in were built with hardier materials, and repairs/updates were always done with hardier materials. The discount of scale makes it easier to invest in better quality.

Granted, I'm currently in a sky-scraper that's over 50 years old. If it wasn't made well...the consequences would be a lot worse than a neglected SFH.

[Sibley]

∆∆∆

That's interesting. Not too surprising. I might add that it's easier to save and reach financial independence living in a single family home with full control over expenses vs. a multifamily building with an HOA and forced service costs which are out of the owners control. I have never lived with an HOA and don't plan to cuz I'm thrifty and resourceful and can do it better myself for less money and I can turn a shithole into a very valuable and desirable property mainly with little investment.

Yes, if you can do all of the work yourself, this is true. However, I've lived in two condo complexes where the discount of scaled work has been exceptionally good value for maintenance services. I'm continually impressed with how far my condo fee dollars go in terms of services and amenities.

Granted, I'm disabled and can only do a limited amount of work myself. I can't replace exterior doors, a roof, do lead abatement, repair concrete, replace plumbing stacks, reline a pool, etc, etc.

In aging communities a lot of older folks also can't do that kind of work, so the economy of scale for maintenance/repairs offers a lot of benefit.

SFHs may be a poor living option for people who are older, disabled, or on a fixed income. Typical North American homes are built out of exterior materials that rot or wear out quickly, like asphalt roofs, plastic windows, exterior wood paneling or vinyl siding, . The interiors feature cheap, fragile materials like MDF cabinets, hollow doors, half inch sheetrock, outlets which quit holding plugs, and poorly built plumbing fixtures whose chrome flakes off in 12 years. They basically require a mild remod and a few thousand dollars worth of exterior work every 10-20 years. It's a ton of work to keep up with one of these things, so most elderly people neglect their SFHs.

This is a good point too. The complexes I've lived in were built with hardier materials, and repairs/updates were always done with hardier materials. The discount of scale makes it easier to invest in better quality.

Granted, I'm currently in a sky-scraper that's over 50 years old. If it wasn't made well...the consequences would be a lot worse than a neglected SFH.

I can attest to the difficultly of older people living in SFH. When it snows, I have to shovel my house as well as determine if my parent's need assistance. I will have to handle lawn mowing at some point, right now my dad can do it but he needs to take multiple breaks (he also wants the independence of doing it himself). I'm paying attention to needed house maintenance, not them. It's hard because I'm not there everyday and I have my own house and life. I didn't want them to buy a SFH and there are old posts on this forum with that explicitly stated. But there weren't good alternatives.

[Metalcat]

I can attest to the difficultly of older people living in SFH. When it snows, I have to shovel my house as well as determine if my parent's need assistance. I will have to handle lawn mowing at some point, right now my dad can do it but he needs to take multiple breaks (he also wants the independence of doing it himself). I'm paying attention to needed house maintenance, not them. It's hard because I'm not there everyday and I have my own house and life. I didn't want them to buy a SFH and there are old posts on this forum with that explicitly stated. But there weren't good alternatives.

Yep, I'm an honorary senior because of my condition and types of disability and I bought my current condo with aging and physical limitations in mind. It's no coincidence that I ended up in a complex filled with seniors or that my unit came with bars already installed in the shower, which have been amazingly useful.

If we're talking about aging populations, we have to consider these kinds of things.

Our society tends to conceptualize "homes" as dwellings for young families, but that thinking needs to evolve.

[RetiredAt63]

This whole housing discussion reflects my senior present life style.  Sold the bungalow in the country, rented an apartment aimed at seniors, moved (for personal reasons) to a rented condo unit.  For my last few years at the house I paid others to do the heavy labour.  Here management gets to do all that work.

I'm considering buying a cottage in a cottage community where management does all the heavy work - manages infrastructure, opens and closes the cottages, etc.

My older friends still living in SFH homes, rural or urban, point out that to do that you need 2 people in the home, plus either lots of family around or enough money for paid help.

[kite]

Demographics decline is multiple catastrophes happening all at once. There's the individual burden: no adult offspring to manage your affairs when you cannot. And there is the population level burden: entire communities with shrinking numbers of young people, too few workers paying into retirement & tax system to provide elder care; proportionately more older voters pushing public policy against sustainability & progress for successive generations.   

It's curious to me that Elon Musk has caught onto the population decline as a problem.  He was a guy who proposed UBI because there weren't going to be enough jobs for all the people as technology advances. And yet, the workforce cannot keep up with demand right this minute. 
Raise women's education and living standards and everyone has fewer children.
And while we all insist we don't want to be a burden, we'd never want to saddle our kids with our care, the reality is that you absolutely will need someone younger & fitter as you decline in your dotage. The majority of us will need help of some kind as our physical and cognitive abilities decline.  It's wonderful to pay for that help and have the money to pay for that help. But you'll still need someone to hire the help, ensure that you ARE being cared for, and someone who is paying attention to the moment when you need to stop driving. 

I'm 56 and thought that moment for me was decades away. In the past 30 days I learned that it's a whole lot closer.  I shoulda had 8 kids.  I wish I had. We're infertile, so it wasn't an option.  But damn. It's not sustainable.  It's a slow motion trainwreck.

[afox]

Demographics decline is multiple catastrophes happening all at once. There's the individual burden: no adult offspring to manage your affairs when you cannot. And there is the population level burden: entire communities with shrinking numbers of young people, too few workers paying into retirement & tax system to provide elder care; proportionately more older voters pushing public policy against sustainability & progress for successive generations.   

It's curious to me that Elon Musk has caught onto the population decline as a problem.  He was a guy who proposed UBI because there weren't going to be enough jobs for all the people as technology advances. And yet, the workforce cannot keep up with demand right this minute. 
Raise women's education and living standards and everyone has fewer children.
And while we all insist we don't want to be a burden, we'd never want to saddle our kids with our care, the reality is that you absolutely will need someone younger & fitter as you decline in your dotage. The majority of us will need help of some kind as our physical and cognitive abilities decline.  It's wonderful to pay for that help and have the money to pay for that help. But you'll still need someone to hire the help, ensure that you ARE being cared for, and someone who is paying attention to the moment when you need to stop driving. 

I'm 56 and thought that moment for me was decades away. In the past 30 days I learned that it's a whole lot closer.  I shoulda had 8 kids.  I wish I had. We're infertile, so it wasn't an option.  But damn. It's not sustainable.  It's a slow motion trainwreck.

Wow, well that's putting it bluntly. Re: Musk, he (like most of us) only had superficial thoughts about the subject initially. Superficial (not thorough, deep, or complete; cursory) thoughts on this subject always result in an opinion of: less kids is good for the planet and everyone. A more in-depth understanding of the issue almost always results in people agreeing that this actually is a problem.

I have 2 kids and wish I had 3. Most of my friends have zero kids and and are adamantly anti-reproduction. I like to appease them by telling them how awful having kids is. Of course its not like your children will be wiping your ass when you're old but someones child will be wiping your ass. This really affects retirement planning. I think services requiring humans will be more expensive in the future due to demographic trends and thus will work longer than planned. If I see the trend worsening as I near retirement age ill have to save more and retire later, I need to make sure I will have more money than the next guy to hire the young ones when im old and frail.