Snowguy's Demographic Spergalerg

[Ban my account ffs!]

I wanted to make a thread where I could just post random demographic information that I find interesting.

The total fertility rate is often used as a measure of fertility in a country, but it can be deceiving since it only provides a snapshot of how many children a woman would have in her lifetime provided the conditions of that year.  But this changes over time.

A classic example occurred many times in the past 120 years...women delaying children due to recession.  This pushed the total fertility rate down...then when those women had those babies as the economy improved, the fertility rate is elevated.

But the overall number of children a given generation of women has does not change...just when they have them.

This tempo effect was partially responsible for the baby bust-boom-bust cycle that began in 1920.  There was also a drop in overall fertility that began late in the 19th century with the average American woman having 3 children survive to adulthood.  Fertility dropped from 3 children per woman born in 1890 to just over 2 per woman born in 1905.  This is likely because the economic crises of rural America in the 20s and then everyone in 29 meant they just couldn't afford kids.

The number of children per woman then rose again so that depression babies (born 1931-1935) had over 3 kids on average.  This then dropped to a low of 1.91 children among those born 1951-1955 before slowly rising to 2.08 for women born 1961-1965.  It will continue to rise slowly for the next cohorts.

But the pattern of how birth rates and fertility play out is a lesson in American groupthink.  Baby booms and busts are contagious, it would seem.  Sometimes for rational reasons, other times not.

For example, in the 1920s farms suffered in America due to low commodity prices.  People were leaving the farms, and moving to the city. These people, by doing so, were delaying having children.  With the decline in immigration to a trickle, births fell precipitously from 3 million in 1921 to 2.5 million in 1928 even as the population of young women was increasing rapidly...so the fertility rate plunged.

The birth rate fell further in the depression bottoming out in 1933 at 2.3 million births.  It stayed between that and 2.5 million until 1940 when fertility among all women began to rise.  By 1943 it was 3 million babies and by 1954 4 million every year.

Fertility increased in all age groups, but especially among women ages 18-29 from 1940-1960.  Then it dropped in all age groups, but especially among older women.  By 1970, women over 30 were having very few babies.  Since 1970, fertility rates among women under 25 have dropped while over 30 has grown.

Millennials are delaying childbirth as fertility rates among 15-24 year olds have plummeted beginning around 1995, but especially in the 2000-2005 and after 2008 periods. 

I know this is impossibly tl;dr but I find this stuff interesting

[Ban my account ffs!]

Some other interesting demographic highlights...

Japan's population is now shrinking by over 250,000 people each year, but will continue to shrink at an increasing rate as births have now fallen to levels not seen since the 19th century. The country will eventually be shrinking by 1 million per year, or 1%.

China is on a similar, if even more rapid trajectory, just 20 years delayed.  China's population now is where Japan's was in 1990.  The first baby boomers are in middle age and their echo boomer children are young adults...but as the fertility rate plummets further in China, the 2nd echo boom is muted.

That has important implications for China's economic growth as it's working age population is already beginning to shrink.

Russia, meanwhile, has seen a real turnaround of sorts.  Births have grown by 50% in recent years for myriad reasons, one including the relatively large 1980s generation reaching prime childbearing years.  This means births will likely begin to decline again in the near future as the 1990s baby bust begin motherhood.  But one good stat: death rates have gone down and life expectancy is going up quickly.  It would seem Putin's domestic popularity isn't that hard to understand.


The US meanwhile has a relatively even population pyramid.  Gen X has grown substantially in relation to the baby boom due to immigration.  Is our social security problem fixed?

[Frodo]

Some other interesting demographic highlights...

Japan's population is now shrinking by over 250,000 people each year, but will continue to shrink at an increasing rate as births have now fallen to levels not seen since the 19th century. The country will eventually be shrinking by 1 million per year, or 1%.

China is on a similar, if even more rapid trajectory, just 20 years delayed.  China's population now is where Japan's was in 1990.  The first baby boomers are in middle age and their echo boomer children are young adults...but as the fertility rate plummets further in China, the 2nd echo boom is muted.

That has important implications for China's economic growth as it's working age population is already beginning to shrink.

And, by extension, its potential military strength, and ability to challenge the United States for superpower status.  

[Ban my account ffs!]

https://yanziyang.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/is-china-in-2010-the-japan-of-1990-is-china-peaking/

That blogger noticed the same thing as me.

[muon2]

Some of these observations about the baby bust in some areas were emerging a decade ago. Here's an article from 2004 that appeared in Foreign Affairs. Here's an LA Times article from the same year that specifically deals with China. It is interesting to compare these thoughts from what is happening today.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Excellent blog

http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/

I read Depopulation: An investor's giude to value in the 21st century.

It does mention how owning assets that pay a dividend will be the best bet outside of niche innovation opportunities because holding assets to sell at a higher price won't be an option for most things.

Property will slowly depreciate over time so only improvements increase value.  There will be less strain on many resources, and quality of life should go up.  But our system will call the period 'lost decades' not understanding that they are looking at the other side of the population curve.