||| FROM THE ECONOMIST |||
When I was at the Jackson Hole gathering of the world’s central bankers this summer some simple arithmetic sent the jaws of many elite economists to the floor. Chad Jones of Stanford calculated that, if the world’s families have one child on average, the global population would fall from 8bn to 1bn in three generations (75 years), to 125m in six generations, and to just 8m people in ten generations. Too-few births, he argued, means “living standards stagnate for a population that vanishes”.
From Bangkok to Berlin, people everywhere are having fewer babies—and the decline is happening faster than many demographers predicted. Pro-natalist politicians and the odd tech billionaire warn of labour shortages, debt spirals and retirement crises. But not everyone agrees that catastrophe is inevitable. Our top economics editors consider the evidence on what baby-bust economics means for the world’s prosperity—and your pension.
READ FULL ARTICLE
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
The link to the article doesn’t appear to be active, which is too bad because it sounds like worthwhile reading!
Ken: https://www.economist.com/insider/inside-economics/the-baby-bust-is-here-how-will-the-world-economy-cope
I think you need a subscription to be able to read that page. I do, but it failed to load on my iPad.