As a Baby Boomer, I was born during a time when many people were concerned about the rapid growth of the population. However, today we face a different problem – the collapse of birth rates worldwide, leading to a shrinking population. More than two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries with birth rates below replacement, including India, China, the U.S., Brazil, and all of Europe. While the United Nations predicts that the global population will peak near the end of the century, many demographers believe that it may occur as early as 2050.
Some people view the declining population as a positive development, but they often overlook the challenges it will create. One of the most significant issues is fiscal havoc. The federal government continues to spend more than it taxes, leading to a growing debt. A low birth rate means more retirees and fewer workers to support them, worsening the debt. Even if we were to reduce the debt, a shrinking, aging population means more non-working people wanting to buy things with their savings, but fewer people to produce them, leading to rampant inflation. As Stanford economist Charles Jones notes, a declining population has profound implications, and it may cause living standards to stagnate. In a recent survey, economists agreed that the economic benefits of an expanding world population outweigh the economic costs by a margin of 58 to 42 percent.
So, what can we do to address this problem? Why aren’t people in their 20s and 30s having more children? Surveys suggest that a wide range of factors are at play, including economic and cultural reasons. On the economic side, young adults worry about the costs of raising children, paying off student loans, and buying a home. On the cultural side, they explain that having children just isn’t a priority.
Can we reverse these trends? One common response is to subsidize raising children. However, pro-natal policies are often expensive, as demonstrated by experience worldwide. Economist Lyman Stone estimates that a pro-natalist policy would cost $200,000 or more per additional baby born, making it prohibitively costly. Instead, we should consider ideas that can boost fertility without coercing taxpayers into footing the bill.
For instance, economist Steve Levitt’s research shows 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.
Another measure that could significantly boost fertility is reducing the price 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. Furthermore, many young adults avoid starting families due to student debt. Therefore, we should explore 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, the share of American adults who say that having children is very important to them has plummeted to 30 percent. What would happen if society stopped thinking of new children as a burden? What would happen if we simply thanked a friend, a co-worker, or even a complete stranger for bringing a new child into the world? We should, because we need children as much as they need us, not only for economic reasons but also for the betterment of society as a whole.
