As a Baby Boomer, I was born during a time when many people were concerned about the population growing too quickly. Nowadays, the opposite is true. Birth rates have plummeted worldwide, and we’re now facing the possibility of a shrinking population. More than two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries where birth rates are below replacement levels, including China, India, the U.S., Brazil, and all of Europe. The United Nations predicts that the global population will peak near the end of the century. However, many demographers believe this could happen much sooner, possibly as early as 2050.
While some people view the declining population as a positive development, they often overlook the difficulties it will create. One of the most pressing concerns is the fiscal havoc it could wreak. The federal government continues to spend more than it collects in taxes, leading to an increase in debt. A low birth rate means more retirees and fewer workers to support them, resulting in more people entitled to Social Security and Medicare but fewer taxpayers to fund these programs. This situation could exacerbate the debt problem. Even if we were to reduce the debt, a shrinking, aging population would still mean more non-working people wanting to purchase goods with their savings, but fewer people to produce them, leading to rampant inflation. According to Stanford economist Charles Jones, a declining population has profound implications. “Rather than continued exponential growth, living standards stagnate.” Many economists agree that the economic benefits of a growing world population outweigh the costs, with 58% to 42% in favor of expansion in a recent survey.
So, what can we do about this problem, and why aren’t people in their 20s and 30s having more children? Surveys suggest a wide range of factors are at play, including economic and cultural issues. Young adults worry about the costs of raising children, paying off student loans, and buying a home. They also explain that having children just isn’t a priority.
One common response is to subsidize raising children. However, experience around the world with such pro-natal policies shows they are very expensive. According to Lyman Stone, a pro-natalist policy would cost $200,000 or more per additional baby born, which is prohibitively costly. Perhaps such policies are warranted, but let’s consider ideas that can boost fertility without coercing taxpayers into footing the bill.
In an underappreciated paper, economist Steve Levitt showed that child safety seats are no better than seat belts at reducing fatalities among children ages two to six. Yet many states require these seats, significantly raising the costs of having a third child. A study by Jordan Nickerson and David Solomon concludes that these laws have led to a permanent reduction of about 8,000 births each year. Removing these laws would be pro-natal.
A much larger boost to fertility could come from reducing the price of the kind of homes that young parents like to buy. Unfortunately, many localities have zoning laws that make building affordable housing difficult. Relaxing these restrictions could be pro-natal.
Many young adults don’t want to start families because of student debt. Accordingly, we should think of ways to make college more affordable, such as shifting funding at middle-tier colleges from research toward teaching. We could also mainstream the idea of having students graduate in three years, which would cut their debt and give them an extra year to achieve career goals before starting a family.
Pro-natal actions needn’t be restricted to the government. Potential grandparents can get involved by saving half the money they would have spent on a posh wedding for a future grandchild.
Sadly, only 30% of American adults say that having children is very important to them. What would happen if society stopped thinking of new children as a burden? What if you simply thanked a friend, a co-worker, or even a complete stranger for bringing a new child into the world? We need children as much as they need us, not just for economic reasons, but for the future of our society.
