There is no question but that the populations of most
European countries will decline in the next generation, and in the cases of
Germany and Russia, the decline will be dramatic. In fact, the entire global
population explosion is ending. In virtually all societies, from the poorest to
the wealthiest, the birthrate among women has been declining. In order to
maintain population stability, the birthrate must remain at 2.1 births per
woman. Above that, and the population rises; below that, it falls. In the advanced
industrial world, the birthrate is already substantially below 2.1. In
middle-tier countries such as Mexico or Turkey, the birthrate is falling but
will not reach 2.1 until between 2040 and 2050. In the poorest countries, such
as Bangladesh or Bolivia, the birthrate is also falling, but it will take most
of this century to reach 2.1. Even with the lifting of "one child"
China has still maintained a very low birth rate. The United States also has a
birthrate for white women at about 1.9, meaning that the Caucasian population
is contracting, but the African-American and Hispanic populations compensate
for that
The process is essentially irreversible. It is primarily a
matter of urbanization. In agricultural and low-level industrial societies,
children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at the age of 6
doing agricultural work or simple workshop labor. Children become a source of
income, and the more you have the better. Just as important, since there is no
retirement plan other than family in such societies, a large family can more
easily support parents in old age.
In a mature urban society, the economic value of children
declines. In fact, children turn from instruments of production into objects of
massive consumption. In urban industrial society, not only are the
opportunities for employment at an early age diminished, but the educational
requirements also expand dramatically. Children need to be supported much
longer, sometimes into their mid-20s. Children cost a tremendous amount of
money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer
children. Birth control merely provided the means for what was an economic
necessity. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial
catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a
result, the population contracts. Of course, there are other reasons for this
decline, but urban industrialism is at the heart of it.
The contraction of the population, particularly during the
transitional period before the older generations die off, will leave a
relatively small number of workers supporting a very large group of retirees,
particularly as life expectancy in advanced industrial countries increases. In
addition, the debts incurred by the older generation would be left to the
smaller, younger generation to pay off. Given this, the expectation is major
economic dislocation. The most obvious solution to this problem is immigration.
The problem is that Japan and most European countries have severe cultural
problems integrating immigrants. The Japanese don't try, for the most part, and
the Europeans who have tried — particularly with migrants from the Islamic world
— have found it difficult.
The United States is an efficient manager of immigration,
despite all the current controversies and past immigration scares. The American
solution of relying on immigration will mean a substantial change in what has
been the historical sore point in American culture: race. The United States can
maintain its population only if the white population becomes a minority in the
long run. The second point is that some of the historical sources of
immigration to the United States, particularly Mexico, are exporting fewer
immigrants. As Mexico moves up the economic scale, emigration to the United
States will decline. Therefore, the third tier of countries where there is
still surplus population will have to be the source for immigrants.
World population was steady until the middle of the 16th
century. The rate of growth increased in about 1750 and moved up steadily until
the beginning of the 20th century, when it surged. Put another way, beginning
with European imperialism and culminating in the 20th century, the population
has always been growing. For the past 500 years or so, the population has grown
at an increasing rate. That means that throughout the history of modern
industrialism and capitalism, there has always been a surplus of labor. There
has also been a shortage of capital in the sense that capital was more
expensive than labor by equivalent quanta, and given the constant production of
more humans, supply tended to depress the price of labor.
For the first time in 500 years, this situation is reversing
itself. First, fewer humans are being born, which means the labor force will
contract and the price of all sorts of labor will increase. This has never
happened before in the history of industrial man. In the past, the scarce
essential element has been capital. But now capital, understood in its precise
meaning as the means of production, will be in surplus, while labor will be at
a premium. The economic plant in place now and created over the next generation
will not evaporate. At most, it is underutilized, and that means a decline in
the return on capital. Put in terms of the analog, money, it means that we will
be entering a period where money will be cheap and labor increasingly
expensive. One of the key variables mitigating the problem would be continuing
advances in technology to increase productivity. We can call this automation or
robotics, but growths in individual working productivity have been occurring in
all productive environments from the beginning of industrialization, and the
rate of growth has been intensifying. A growth in productivity so vast that it
would leave labor in surplus. Of course if that happened, then we would be
entering a revolutionary situation in which the relationship between labor and
income would have to shift.
The pattern of falling death rates, followed by falling
birth rates applies for most of the world. Saving lives doesn't lead to
overpopulation - just the opposite. Creating societies where people enjoy
health, prosperity and fundamental equality is the only way to a sustainable
world.
http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/global-markets/population-decline-and-the-great-economic-reversal?post=59016
1 comment:
Overpopulation is the problem too.
Post a Comment