I wouldn't worry too much about the twitter mob. They are extremely unrepresentative of the general population. That guy Mo Torres seems like a real piece of work - he's a PhD candidate and willfully misinterprets what you wrote so aggressively for clout? He's the type of illiberal "elite intellectual" that is dividing the left and (perhaps rightfully) used by the right to cast the left as crazy.
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful articles. Keep doing what you do.
I've been fortunate to see in their entirety your free Substack posts the last two months and paywalled Bloomberg Opinion columns over the last year. I never once felt triggered or threatened by the various analyses over immigration and fertility. Forget the Twitter mob. Folks on social media who read last week’s allegedly scandalous paragraph really need to read the Great Replacement rebuttal piece, which is freely available to the world. The fertility rates are what they are. My Central American family and wife’s South American family two generations ago regularly had families sized five children and up. The later generations have mostly moved up economically and have no more than two to three children, if any at all. Eventually, the new generations discover that working, living a middle-class life, and having more children is hard. For what it's worth, I have noticed that when young couples around us start having babies, the trends reverberate within the social circles. Maybe there's a multiplier effect there worth exploring.
Noah, why are you sad that someone who has preconceived notions about meaning and doesn't take the time to understand what you meant offers a grandstanding condemnation? It's unfortunate if other people, who don't read you, are influenced by such people, but please don't try to shape your writing (e.g., write each paragraph so it can stand by itself) just to please what are sadly dishonest commenters.
Loved your reflective approach and the dangers of nuance
On the topic - looking at India’s big “dividend” which is at risk because of poor human capital - and the US’ decline in education as well as China’s missing ability to extend education below the top 30% - seems that new models of learning and working are vital to deal with these demographics rather than focusing just on numbers
I appreciate your clarification for those who may have misunderstood the intention of your words. I have a question about the original topic, though. Is it preferable for the country economically for population to increase through adult immigration (assuming immediate workforce involvement) or childbirth (delayed workforce involvement)?
next post should be about choices people make while choosing sperm donors, race-based adoption fees and fertility by political orientation and you'll complete your own cancellation:)
People shouldn't be forced to have kids they don't want, but one thing I've seen from reading surveys is that Americans are having even fewer children than they want.
There are a bunch of aspects of our society that make it way harder to raise children than it needs to be, and we should stop doing those things!
I think you are getting lost in macro theory. Step back and remember that "the economy" does not have wants or desires and we don't care what is better for "the economy" we each care individually what is better for ourselves.
I study ancient and medieval economics and one very big difference is the populations. Technology has done more to increase population than it has done to increase living standards. Relative to us ancients had poor technology but vastly more natural resources per capita.
We should very much welcome voluntary population decline. The combination of population growth and increasing resource use per capita is a road to calamity.
Eugenicism wants fewer minorities? The heck? The point ought to be countering the long term negative trend that the successful have fewer kids and the less successful tend to have more - in other words, if you're concerned about births by different races, you're an idiot. (Instead just be classist! Alright, that doesn't really sound much better does it)
Anyway, other eugenicists make a rather grave error in that they assume that lower quality births would be better off prevented. Almost certainly not! Even if there is a lesser positive contribution to the world from the average birth to a poor person compared to a richer person, *it's still positive*, and ought to be encouraged. Yes, in a vacuum we'd prefer every child to be born with astounding genes and be intelligent and well adjusted and not prone to obesity, but that doesn't mean we ought to do the great evil of using force to prevent people having children!
Further, I suspect any eugenic movement would have to not be coercive - it'd have to be cultural. A change in what is acceptable, such as encouraging people of lower capacity to use surrogate sperm, or perhaps everybody converting to Mormonism.
I'm pretty Malthusian in my thinking about population growth, within a country or more importantly globally. I don't see how arguing that more people on the planet is going to make things better, for future generations let alone for people living on the earth now.
The problem with Malthusian thinking is that it is easy to confuse or conflate it with eugenics and Darwinism interpreted in terms of race, nationality, or culture. Look at the grief Bernie Sanders experienced when he suggested promoting population restraint in Africa and other relatively poor parts of the globe where fertility is still way above the natural reproduction rate.
There are many ways to interpret the demographic transition but the consensus is that education - particularly for women - is a key variable causing reproduction rates per woman (the total fertility rate approximately equal to twice the gross reproduction rate) to fall near rates that generate population dynamics near levels in which the net reproduction rate (the gross reproduction rate adjusted for mortality risks is near unity. generating long run stable population stability.
The long-run problem with a low fertility/low mortality/high life expectancy regime is the resulting age structure: a relatively large percentage of people in the age group 65 years and older. Economic models like that developed by Kotlikoff (spelling ?) at Boston University suggests this is a good thing for accumulating capital. Moreover with automation the opportunity for older folks - like me ! - to participate in the labor market or at least contribute has improved as tasks are depending less and less on muscle as opposed to brains.
I think "assimilation to US fertility norms" should have been rephrased; it suggests a) Hispanics are not of the US; b) the fertility norms are characteristics of the US, whereas you make clear above you understand they are contingent on particular historical developments and contingencies; c) "assimilation" has some connotations you might have done better to avoid.
The idea that economic growth is dependent on an ever-growing population is a fallacy. Japan's population has been roughly stable for the past 30 years, while their GDP has increased by two-thirds.
Noah, I understand your sentiments, but how is the talk about fertility not going to impinge on choices other people make? I mean, at some point it will just become clear that a decision not to have kids is like driving a big SUV or eating meat - a decision with huge negative externalities. Aren't government going to tax that kind of behaviour?
From the incentives point of view: in the olden times people had tons of babies for purely economic reasons (having 10 kids to defend your estate, plow the fields, and care for you when you get old just makes economic sense, especially given the mortality rates back then); then the great industrialisation came (forget the pill) and having lots of babies is economically suicidal; so now to the get pendulum back into balance, the governments will have to make it economically suicidal NOT to have kids. Otherwise what is the alternative? Immigration is predicted on Africa growing forever.
I wouldn't worry too much about the twitter mob. They are extremely unrepresentative of the general population. That guy Mo Torres seems like a real piece of work - he's a PhD candidate and willfully misinterprets what you wrote so aggressively for clout? He's the type of illiberal "elite intellectual" that is dividing the left and (perhaps rightfully) used by the right to cast the left as crazy.
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful articles. Keep doing what you do.
I've been fortunate to see in their entirety your free Substack posts the last two months and paywalled Bloomberg Opinion columns over the last year. I never once felt triggered or threatened by the various analyses over immigration and fertility. Forget the Twitter mob. Folks on social media who read last week’s allegedly scandalous paragraph really need to read the Great Replacement rebuttal piece, which is freely available to the world. The fertility rates are what they are. My Central American family and wife’s South American family two generations ago regularly had families sized five children and up. The later generations have mostly moved up economically and have no more than two to three children, if any at all. Eventually, the new generations discover that working, living a middle-class life, and having more children is hard. For what it's worth, I have noticed that when young couples around us start having babies, the trends reverberate within the social circles. Maybe there's a multiplier effect there worth exploring.
What we need to do... not from a government policy stand point... is educated people on timing.
I have two sisters-in-law who are on IVF (both career types... 40-years old). It’s heartbreaking watching them struggle.
Both were under the impression that egg freezing/ IVF was a sure thing. Apparently it’s only 50%.
I wonder how many children are unborn because of this.
I think generous child care, work flexibility, and other social programs could mitigate this... encourage women to have children early.
It’s part policy, but also part cultural.
Otherwise it will be the Mormons and Amish who inherit everything.
Anyways. Had 5-kids. Done my part.
Noah, why are you sad that someone who has preconceived notions about meaning and doesn't take the time to understand what you meant offers a grandstanding condemnation? It's unfortunate if other people, who don't read you, are influenced by such people, but please don't try to shape your writing (e.g., write each paragraph so it can stand by itself) just to please what are sadly dishonest commenters.
Loved your reflective approach and the dangers of nuance
On the topic - looking at India’s big “dividend” which is at risk because of poor human capital - and the US’ decline in education as well as China’s missing ability to extend education below the top 30% - seems that new models of learning and working are vital to deal with these demographics rather than focusing just on numbers
It would help if my generation wasn’t fearing imminent death due to climate change/civil war/great replacement or whatever.
I appreciate your clarification for those who may have misunderstood the intention of your words. I have a question about the original topic, though. Is it preferable for the country economically for population to increase through adult immigration (assuming immediate workforce involvement) or childbirth (delayed workforce involvement)?
next post should be about choices people make while choosing sperm donors, race-based adoption fees and fertility by political orientation and you'll complete your own cancellation:)
No matter what side you take, you'll be accused of favoring eugenics.
Want more babies? Eugenicist. Fewer babies? Eugenicist. Keep the number of babies the same? Oh you better believe you're a eugenicist.
People shouldn't be forced to have kids they don't want, but one thing I've seen from reading surveys is that Americans are having even fewer children than they want.
There are a bunch of aspects of our society that make it way harder to raise children than it needs to be, and we should stop doing those things!
I think you are getting lost in macro theory. Step back and remember that "the economy" does not have wants or desires and we don't care what is better for "the economy" we each care individually what is better for ourselves.
I study ancient and medieval economics and one very big difference is the populations. Technology has done more to increase population than it has done to increase living standards. Relative to us ancients had poor technology but vastly more natural resources per capita.
We should very much welcome voluntary population decline. The combination of population growth and increasing resource use per capita is a road to calamity.
Eugenicism wants fewer minorities? The heck? The point ought to be countering the long term negative trend that the successful have fewer kids and the less successful tend to have more - in other words, if you're concerned about births by different races, you're an idiot. (Instead just be classist! Alright, that doesn't really sound much better does it)
Anyway, other eugenicists make a rather grave error in that they assume that lower quality births would be better off prevented. Almost certainly not! Even if there is a lesser positive contribution to the world from the average birth to a poor person compared to a richer person, *it's still positive*, and ought to be encouraged. Yes, in a vacuum we'd prefer every child to be born with astounding genes and be intelligent and well adjusted and not prone to obesity, but that doesn't mean we ought to do the great evil of using force to prevent people having children!
Further, I suspect any eugenic movement would have to not be coercive - it'd have to be cultural. A change in what is acceptable, such as encouraging people of lower capacity to use surrogate sperm, or perhaps everybody converting to Mormonism.
I'm pretty Malthusian in my thinking about population growth, within a country or more importantly globally. I don't see how arguing that more people on the planet is going to make things better, for future generations let alone for people living on the earth now.
The problem with Malthusian thinking is that it is easy to confuse or conflate it with eugenics and Darwinism interpreted in terms of race, nationality, or culture. Look at the grief Bernie Sanders experienced when he suggested promoting population restraint in Africa and other relatively poor parts of the globe where fertility is still way above the natural reproduction rate.
There are many ways to interpret the demographic transition but the consensus is that education - particularly for women - is a key variable causing reproduction rates per woman (the total fertility rate approximately equal to twice the gross reproduction rate) to fall near rates that generate population dynamics near levels in which the net reproduction rate (the gross reproduction rate adjusted for mortality risks is near unity. generating long run stable population stability.
The long-run problem with a low fertility/low mortality/high life expectancy regime is the resulting age structure: a relatively large percentage of people in the age group 65 years and older. Economic models like that developed by Kotlikoff (spelling ?) at Boston University suggests this is a good thing for accumulating capital. Moreover with automation the opportunity for older folks - like me ! - to participate in the labor market or at least contribute has improved as tasks are depending less and less on muscle as opposed to brains.
Carl Mosk
I think "assimilation to US fertility norms" should have been rephrased; it suggests a) Hispanics are not of the US; b) the fertility norms are characteristics of the US, whereas you make clear above you understand they are contingent on particular historical developments and contingencies; c) "assimilation" has some connotations you might have done better to avoid.
The idea that economic growth is dependent on an ever-growing population is a fallacy. Japan's population has been roughly stable for the past 30 years, while their GDP has increased by two-thirds.
Noah, I understand your sentiments, but how is the talk about fertility not going to impinge on choices other people make? I mean, at some point it will just become clear that a decision not to have kids is like driving a big SUV or eating meat - a decision with huge negative externalities. Aren't government going to tax that kind of behaviour?
From the incentives point of view: in the olden times people had tons of babies for purely economic reasons (having 10 kids to defend your estate, plow the fields, and care for you when you get old just makes economic sense, especially given the mortality rates back then); then the great industrialisation came (forget the pill) and having lots of babies is economically suicidal; so now to the get pendulum back into balance, the governments will have to make it economically suicidal NOT to have kids. Otherwise what is the alternative? Immigration is predicted on Africa growing forever.