Here is a good, long, often-drastic article from The New York Times about global demographic shifts, fertility rates, replacement rates, and the like. Let me pull-quote the essence of said article for you:
The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation.
Most people read that and it feels hella drastic, because issues of demographics at the individual level are akin to unemployment rate discussions. If you have a job, you’re “1” not “zero,” and you tend to not care. If you don’t have a job, you care. Unless you’re an economist or some type of analyst, what the hell does unemployment rate matter to you? You earn income or you don’t. Next question.
It’s the same with these demographic discussions. You know how many kids you have and how big your family is, and you know how many seem reasonable, even though many Subdivision Sarahs push right past that number and crater their marriage in the process. So it’s an individual thing. You might care more if you’re generally interested in big-picture thinking, if you had fertility issues/concerns yourself, or maybe you’re a data geek. Most people think about this stuff in terms of “Here are my two beautiful children.” They don’t wonder what’s happening in Hungary, because they don’t live there, and it’s probably not on top of their vacation Google Doc.
Also, most of this stuff is framed up in 2100 (the year) statistics, and many of us will be dead, or aged, by then. As noted in this article, even: Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.
2100 is tough for people to process. They have to-do list items today, you know?
But what is interesting is that, as we emerge from COVID somewhat, the whole narrative in journalism and cable news and social media (when not screaming about masks or whatever) is that this will be some kind of fulcrum point for society and our relationship to work. I do believe that at the individual level, some people will wake up and say “Wow, work is essentially a transaction, and I can’t define my sense of self and success around that.” That would be cool, and I think we are seeing more of that.
Writ-large, is work changing? Absolutely not. We’re already seeing a deluge of articles about companies wanting people back in the office as soon as possible. It’s going to be a reckoning.
But now we have this looming problem, and said looming problem will actually change our relationship to work. Here are the various intersections:
- Cost-cutters running companies
- Rising cost of goods and services
- Urban-rural split
- Declining fertility rates
- Rise of automation
- Realization of many “bullshit jobs”
- Gig/creator economy
You can toss in “crypto-currency” here and stuff if you want, but probably not just yet. The reality is that the model we based economies on for generations is going to eventually shift, and if population declines, and old people > young people in certain areas, which we’re already seeing (Italy, others), that’s a hard economy to fathom playing out. Immigration could factor in, sure. So could shifting habits and governmental intervention, even though the latter gives people herpes if you discuss it openly.
The sheer reality is that when we were a more agriculture-driven society, six kids was not a luxury. It wasn’t quite a necessity, but it was closer to necessity than luxury. Now six kids is, as Brad in Sales will tell you, “six mouths to feed.” It’s a different ballgame. And the economy will eventually need to reflect that, especially as The Automation Train barrels down on us at a relatively high rate of speed.
Now, in many ways some of this stuff could be good. You’re talking about women having more choices, less strain on resources, maybe higher wages in some areas. We haven’t necessarily proven those things do happen with less population, but there’s a logic there, and we want to believe it can play out.
Where do you see things landing? Do you care, assuming you plan to be dead by 2100?
