I liked it.

Before I started studying 16th century history, I was very good with to/too/two and their/there and your/you're. Now I get them wrong more often than right, but the result is rarely something that makes me smile. "Futile" was a great typo :-)

And it made me think... humans are less fertile, but are they less futile? Does a feeling of futility have anything to do with the demographic turn? I would guess that less futility brings down fertility since people have a sense of control, but past a certain point, maybe that reverses.

Anyway, the typo is one of those errant events that reframes the question in an interesting way!

>Japan births at new low as population shrinks and ages


Millions of empty homes in Japan are being sold for a song or even given away. Foreigners are taking notice
There are 8 million akiya, or "vacant homes," whose owners have died or moved away, mostly in the countryside.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2023/03/05/millions-of-empty-homes-in-japan-are-being-sold-for-a-song-or-even-given-away-foreigners-are-taking-notice.html

Too bad Bill doesn't post any longer.  I remember some details about vacant homes being taxed at very high rates in Japan and how that has a tendency of making their value drop to nothing over time.

I happen to think Thanos was right.  But nothing causes more builder nightmares than a flat or shrinking population.  Fewer vehicles sold, too. So there goes the current economy built on continuous population growth.

Not Korea, but Japan:
https://i.redd.it/8xyo5rdghbma1.jpg

The second half of the twenty-first century will be very interesting.

Somewhat related

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust

This is quite long, so the TL;DR is roughly this.

Background
- France saw its fertility rate fall 100 years before any other country
- it went from being the "China of Europe" with almost 5x the population of England to having only about 1.2x the population
- Under Louis XIV and Napoleon, it meant that France could field armies as large or larger than opponents even when several countries combined.
- but by 1815 (i.e. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo), the die was cast. France's fertility had been in decline for 50 years while fertility in other countries increased, resulting in a huge relative decline in population.
- whereas birthrates in FR and England (and Wales) were similar in 1700, by about the 1830s, France had fallen from over 4.5 to 3.5 children per woman while in England and Wales, fertility rose from a bit under 5 per woman to six.
- this decline in fertility relative to surrounding countries led to the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, with France being defeated by what would have been a minor power a century earlier. And by 1914, the Germans could field a larger army than the French.

The interesting part that's relevant to looking forward into the 21st century...

France had a declining population relative to England. England became home to the industrial revolution and population boomed. You can see these as two strategies for economic development. Over the period 1760 to 1860, when the demographic divergence was the greatest, GDP per capita in France and England stayed in almost lockstep with each other.

In other words, France reduced the denominator and England increased the numerator, with the result that both countries saw GDP per capita double over the period. So while France ceased to be a dominant global military power, it remained a significant economic power with a high and increasing standard of living even in the face of substantial decline in fertility. But it was NOT below replacement rate.

The conclusion (my emphasis)

QuoteWhat can we learn from this? Today, the political and economic prospects of an empty planet are a worry for many, as more and more countries reach fertility rates below replacement levels. The population of China is projected to halve by 2100. The historical fertility transition in France shows that demographic decline – at least while still above replacement levels – does not necessarily spell society's eternal doom. In particular, it could be a way for developing countries to adapt to climate change, by reducing the pressure of overpopulation and generating a 'demographic dividend', where the ratio of working-age to dependent population rises, raising average incomes and living standards. Just such a dividend has helped many developing countries escape the Malthusian trap, as it did for France in the eighteenth century.

In other words, unanswered is the question of whether or not relative population decline compared to other countries has useful lessons in a world of absolute population decline.

Saw a graph today, Japan's death rate now exceeds its birth rate by 700k+ / year.

+

Last year, roughly twice as many people died as were born, with fewer than 800,000 births and nearly 1.58 million deaths.

'No babies, no Japan': PM Kishida's aide says country 'will disappear' if people don't have more children

https://www.firstpost.com/world/no-babies-no-japan-pm-kishidas-aide-says-country-will-disappear-if-people-dont-have-more-children-12247682.html

This community's quarter century without a newborn shows the scale of Japan's population crisis
"All the elderly people took turns holding my baby," Miho recalled.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/asia/japan-population-crisis-countryside-cities-intl-hnk-dst/?dicbo=v2-zxRWM5x&hpt=ob_blogfooterold

This does seem like a fixable problem to me.  I am pretty sure with enough incentive people would start having more babies.   Also, a slow trickle of migrants would counter the population crash without changing their culture that much.  There is some irony that xenophobia will ultimately cause the future migration into Japan to be less assimilated.

>enough incentive

That's the funny part. The governments (other than Finland, Denmark, others?) talk it up but seem to end up only doing that.  I'm sorry, but a sex talk and a few hundred dollars worth of diapers & formula ain't going to impress a couple living from paycheck to paycheck.

In the US, give 'em free childcare until kindergarten age.  The trouble with that is they really only want white, christian babies.

> The trouble with that is they really only want white, christian babies.

More xenophobia.

THE REAL REASON SOUTH KOREANS AREN'T HAVING BABIES

tl;dr: too much burden on women as they are expected to work (for less) & do all the household duties; gender wars and women just dropping out of dating, cost of living

>> enough incentive

Funny you should say that. This afternoon I was listening to a sociologist on Fresh Air who was talking about the substantial reduction in child poverty due to the relatively modest Covid benefit.

It got me thinking about a broad child benefit that would make it easier for people to decide to have children. Seems obvious and as a childless person, I'd be happy to pay it, just like I'm happy to pay for public schools.

But then this discussion made me ask, "Does it even work?"

It looks like the answer is, "Kinda, sorta." It looks a lot more expensive than, say, immigration. Estonia has boosted its fertility rate, but with a lavish set of benefits that seem pretty unthinkable in the US (1.5 years of fully paid parental leave). I don't think Americans like kids *that* much.

QuoteThis is where family policies can help, including child allowances. Research from other countries shows that direct payments lead to a slight increase in birthrates — at least at first. In Spain, for instance, a child allowance led to a 3 percent increase in birthrates; when it was canceled, birthrates dropped 6 percent. The benefit seems to encourage women to have children earlier, but not necessarily to have more of them — so even if it increases fertility in a given year, it doesn't have large effects over a generation.

In addition to the international evidence, there is data on the effect of direct payments on parents in the United States. Alaskans get a payment each year, based on oil revenues. Because it varies annually and increases with the number of children, researchers have been able to examine its effect on fertility. Payments increased fertility, their studies have shown. A study that covered the years 1984 to 2010 found the increase was bigger for some groups: Alaskan Natives; those without college degrees; and unmarried women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/upshot/americans-fertility-babies.html

QuoteThe picture is somewhat different across the Gulf of Finland, where the Baltic nation of Estonia has managed to boost its birth rate during the last decade and a half.

The upturn can at least to some extent be attributed to government decisions to invest in family policies, mostly in the form of increased financial support for large families.

In addition to the generous family leave policy introduced in 2004 – which provides a year and a half of fully paid benefits – in 2017 the country launched a monthly child benefit: €60 for the first child, €60 for the second and €100 for the third child. The state also rewards families for having three or more children: they receive a monthly bonus of €300 euros. In total an Estonian family with three children receives €520 euros per month in family benefits.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191017-does-it-make-sense-to-pay-people-to-have-kids

Canada's population grew by record 1 million in 2022, spurred by international migration | CBC News

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-record-population-growth-migration-1.6787428

The world's peak population may be smaller than expected
New evidence suggests Africa's birth rates are falling fast
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/04/05/the-worlds-peak-population-may-be-smaller-than-expected

Russia's population nightmare is going to get even worse
The number of Russians born in April 2022 was no higher than it had been in the months of Hitler's occupation.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/04/russias-population-nightmare-is-going-to-get-even-worse