Last month this blogger was surprised to learn about forecasted declines in world population and the resulting challenges of coping with such changes.[1] And earlier this week this blogger was also surprised to discover that due to the aging and forecasted retirement of many U.S. primary- care physicians, the U.S. will need to recruit foreign physicians to move to the U.S. and practice here and hence U.S. laws will have to be amended and supplemented to facilitate such transfers.[2]
This discussion has been joined by The Economist from London with an editorial and an article about the global challenge of low birth rates and the resulting aging and declining population around the world.
The Editorial[3]
Here is the Editorial’s headline: “Cash for kids—Baby-boosting policies won’t work. Economies must adapt to baby busts instead.” Here are its points:
- “As birth rates plunge, many politicians want to pour money into policies that might lead women to have more babies. . . . Yet all these attempts are likely to fail, because they are built on a misapprehension.”
- “Governments’ concern is understandable. Fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere , and the rich world faces a severe shortage of babies. . . . Every rich country except Israel has a fertility rate beneath the replacement rate of 2.1 at which a population is stable without immigration. . . . They will bring profound social and economic change.”
- “Ageing and shrinking societies will probably lose dynamism and military might. They will certainly face a budgetary nightmare, as taxpayers struggle to finance the pensions and health care of legions of oldies.”
- “[G]overnments are wrong to think it is within their power to boost fertility rates. . . [S]uch policies are founded on a false diagnosis of what has so fared caused demographic decline.. . . [T]hey could cost more than the problems they are designed to solve.”
- “The bulk of the decline in the fertility rate in rich countries is among the younger, poorer women who are delaying when they start to have children, and who therefore have fewer overall. . . . [But] focusing [pronatal policies on this group] would be bad for them and for society.”
- “High-skilled immigration can plug fiscal gaps. But not indefinitely, given that fertility is falling globally. . . Welfare states will need rethinking: older people will have to work later in life. . . . the invention and adoption of new technologies will need to be encouraged. . . . New household technologies may help parents. . . . Baby-boosting policies . . . are a costly and socially retrograde mistake.”
The Article[4]
The Economist article says, “The world faces a shortage of babies. Among rich countries, only Israel is having enough babies to stop its population from shrinking, and in most places birth rates are falling . . . . As a consequence, the great and the good are growingly worried.”
Hence, “almost every rich country is thus considering increasing its pro-natal efforts, as are many middle-income ones.” However, pro-natal policies backed by government subsidies to parents have not been successful in boosting the number of births. “Attempting to encourage middle-class women to have more children is therefore unlikely to be successful. . . . Younger and working-class women probably offer policymakers the best chance of higher birth rates. Indeed, some programs are now beginning to explicitly target them.”
However, “the financial benefits of pro-natal policies aimed at working-class women would probably be overwhelmed by their costs.”
Conclusion
Are there any errors in the preceding analyses and conclusions? How do we all cope with this situation? Have any other publications discussed these issues?
=====================
[1] Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand?, dwkcommentaries.com (May 16, 2024).
[2] Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, dwkcommentaries.com (June 1, 2024).
[3] Editorial, Cash for kids. Baby-boosting policies won’t work. Economies must adept to baby busts instead,The Economist at 9 (May 25, 2024).
[4] The pro-natalist turn: Putting a price on them, The Economist at 60 (May 25, 2024).