Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 28 2019, @02:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-guys-know-what-the-solution-is dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Fertility Rate in U.S. Hit a Record Low in 2018

The rate of births fell again last year, according to new government data, extending a lengthy decline as women wait until they are older to have children.

The number of births per 1,000 women in the United States has been declining even as the economy has recovered from the downturn of 2007-8. 

The fertility rate in the United States fell in 2018 for the fourth straight year, extending a steep decline in births that began in 2008 with the Great Recession, the federal government said on Wednesday.

There were 59.1 births for every 1,000 women of childbearing age in the country last year, a record low, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The rate was down by 2 percent from the previous year, and has fallen by about 15 percent since 2007.

In all, there were 3,791,712 births in the country last year, the center said in its release of final birth data for 2018.

Fertility rates are essential measures of a society's demographic balance. If they are very high, resources like housing and education can be strained by a flood of children, as happened in the postwar Baby Boom years. If they are too low, a country may find itself with too few young people to replace its work force and support its elderly, as in Russia and Japan today.

In the United States, declines in fertility have not led to drops in population, in part because immigration has helped offset them.

The country has been living through one of the longest declines in fertility in decades. Demographers are trying to determine whether it is a temporary phenomenon or a new normal, driven by deeper social change.

Fertility rates tend to drop during difficult economic times, as people put off having babies, and then rise when the economy rebounds. That is what happened during and after the Great Depression of the 1930s. But this time around, the birthrate has not recovered with the economy. A brief uptick in the rate in 2014 did not last.

"It is hard for me to believe that the birthrate just keeps going down," said Kenneth M. Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire.

Mr. Johnson estimated that if the rate had remained steady at its 2007 level, there would have been 5.7 million more births in the country since then.

The decline in 2018 was broad, sweeping through nearly all age groups, and reflected a long, gradual shift in American childbearing to later in the mother's life. The rate fell most steeply among women in their teens — down 7.4 percent from the year before. Births to teenagers have fallen by more than 70 percent since 1991.

Women in their 20s had fewer babies last year as well. Historically, women in their late twenties usually had the highest fertility rates of all, but they were overtaken in 2016 by women in their early 30s, reflecting a trend of later childbearing throughout American society.

The only age groups that recorded increases in fertility rates in 2018 were women in their late 30s and early 40s.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday November 28 2019, @02:50PM (37 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday November 28 2019, @02:50PM (#925637)

    The people who are complaining about overpopulation and such should be overjoyed by this news. Especially since Americans on average use far more resources than people of other nations.

    And it's also a strong sign that people aren't having kids they can't afford to have, and are taking advantage of birth control methods (including abstinence) to prevent that from happening.

    From an economic standpoint, there's all this talk about how automation means fewer people needed to work. Well, among the most humane ways of having fewer people to work is to have fewer people born in the first place.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @03:05PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @03:05PM (#925641)

    > people aren't having kids they can't afford to have

    Additional possible reasons that they aren't having kids:
      - They don't see any way that a kid born today could have it better than the parents (many aspects--money, class, etc).
      - Possible infertility from recreational drug use
      - The whole "incel" problem (my theory--starting with helicopter parents??)
      - Too busy with their phones to notice the other sex (the phones are designed to be better than sex in terms of dopamine hits)
      - More??

    I live in a former Rust Belt area with stable or slightly declining population. While it's not that easy to find a job, if you have one this is a pretty pleasant place. Infrastructure isn't over-loaded, traffic jams are infrequent, housing isn't very expensive (compared to the coasts).

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:49PM (3 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:49PM (#925783) Homepage

      They don't want White babies because White people demand higher standards of living and want to do more with their lives than be consumerist debt slaves.

      That's why they bring in the culturally inferior who are willing to live packed into housing like clown cars. Put it this way: a Jewish property owner rents a small single-family home. He can rent it to a quiet and respectful White family for (pulling the number out of my ass) $2000 a month. But when more Mexicans move in, the property owner along with the other greedy property owners know that they can raise rents to $3000 a month because Mexicans like to pack. So with a White family you have a husband, wife, maybe a kid or two. With a Mexican family, you have mom, dad, 6 kids (3 of whom are old enough to work part-time jobs or under the table to chip in), abuelita, maybe a couple tios or tias and 1 or 2 primos or primas. They don't mind living in situations where they're constantly stepping over each other inside the house, but when they need toom they hang out in the front yard drinking cerveza and listening to banda music.

      And you know, besides the noise, when you see a single-family home with 5 cars (Chevy sedans and GMC SUVs) overflowing out of the driveway. Now imagine such a scenario involving multi-family housing and the problem grows exponentially.

      There are occupancy laws limiting amount of people to given square footage, and other quality-of-life laws designed to tamp down on this, but those laws only apply to White people in rich neighborhoods.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:18PM (2 children)

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:18PM (#925796)

        I'd say "culturally inferior" refers to the government employees who tortured prisoners after 9/11, and those who defend that and the corruption in the head office.

        But that aside, every wave of immigrants has been pretty much the same. That "Jewish property owner"'s ancestors were living in a cramped apartment over the candy store. Immigrants tend to not have much (that's why they came) and consequently live poorly compared to the established. The established have always disliked/feared the newcomers, whether that was the Irish, Germans, Norwegians, Italians, Russians, Chinese, Jews, Somalis, Mexicans. The newcomers have always been bad for property values. But, ya know, a couple of generations and their descendants are just like everybody else (and just as ready to dump on the newbies). And there are always politicians ready to stir fear by divide and conquer, all the while sucking up to their paymasters.

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:37PM (#925803) Homepage

          " But, ya know, a couple of generations and their descendants are just like everybody else (and just as ready to dump on the newbies). "

          Disagreed. If that were true, then each generation of these families would have their own dwelling with only a couple and their 2-3 kids living in it by now, and they'd be a hell of a lot more quiet. They might also run an A/C unit rather than putting tinfoil or cardboard behind the windows.

          " And there are always politicians ready to stir fear by divide and conquer, all the while sucking up to their paymasters. "

          Partially agreed, but only people like Trump tell it like it is even if he also profited from cheap labor. The rich profit not only from the cheap labor but the "divide and conquer" principle that keeps Whites mad at Mexicans rather than the rich Whites in government, who should be the real target of the disenfranchised Whites' anger. This is why Trump is so popular now.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @10:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @10:13AM (#925976)

            people like Trump tell it like it is

            No, he does not. He just plays to your fears and fake fantasies. Nothing to do with reality.

            Disagreed. If that were true, then each generation of these families would have their own dwelling with only a couple and their 2-3 kids living in it by now, and they'd be a hell of a lot more quiet. They might also run an A/C unit rather than putting tinfoil or cardboard behind the windows.

            And here you are, with your fantasies again. The people that do this are not "them", it is *YOU*. The Trumpsters that do this because

            1. are poor and can't afford AC
            2. still haven't heard that there is no tinfoil

            What number11 wrote was 100% correct. What you write is just your fantasies. Most immigrants will do better in their new countries than the non-immigrants. That's the statistics (but who needs reality when you can have fantasies?) And the only place I've ever seen aluminum foil on the windows is in the house of some non-immigrants. Actually, in a house of a gun-toting rednecks.

    • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Friday November 29 2019, @04:47AM

      by epitaxial (3165) on Friday November 29 2019, @04:47AM (#925928)

      More like because its finally socially acceptable to say you don't like children.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @03:37PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @03:37PM (#925651)

    I am pleasantly surprised, if this is true. 20 years ago, American families had as a matter of course put out three children, even as the writing was on the wall that good jobs would become scarce and advancement opportunities limited. Other developed countries have long before transitioned to about one child. Is religion finally losing its grasp on the average American?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:21PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:21PM (#925689)

      I don't understand how people don't see the natural corollary of their own views. Can't you see what happens when one group stops procreating while another group continues pumping out the babies? And due to the nature of reproduction where 2.0 is the baseline, even relatively small differences have huge impacts. E.g. imagine two groups. One has a fertility rate average of 1.5, the other has an average of 2.5. Start with 1000 people in each group. After just 3 generations, the 1.5 group is down to 420 people. The 1000 group is up to 3375. So, in a democracy, the high fertility group, now has 89% of the vote. I mean this isn't like hundreds of years - that's ~70 years to go from 50:50 'yay look how cultured we are not having many babies', to 90:10 'oh god this world is so screwed what happened to the world i used to know.'

      And while religion does correlate strongly with fertility, I think the correlation is confounded (except in the case of Mormons...). In particular I think the main issues driving low fertility in the west are cultural in nature - religion just tends to exclude people from these cultures. You can also go about it the other way. China has been disproportionately secular for many centuries. In modern times you can't even become a member of the Chinese Communist Party unless you are an atheist. Before the 1 child policy China, for all of its irreligion, had one of the highest birth rates in the world - the reason they now have 1.4 billion people and we have 330 million.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:45PM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:45PM (#925707) Journal
        "I don't understand how people don't see the natural corollary of their own views. Can't you see what happens when one group stops procreating while another group continues pumping out the babies? And due to the nature of reproduction where 2.0 is the baseline, even relatively small differences have huge impacts. E.g. imagine two groups. One has a fertility rate average of 1.5, the other has an average of 2.5. Start with 1000 people in each group. After just 3 generations, the 1.5 group is down to 420 people. The 1000 group is up to 3375. So, in a democracy, the high fertility group, now has 89% of the vote. I mean this isn't like hundreds of years - that's ~70 years to go from 50:50 'yay look how cultured we are not having many babies', to 90:10 'oh god this world is so screwed what happened to the world i used to know.'"

        Yep.

        What I've seen in my own lifetime, as a result I believe of the change in laws primarily, though some of those laws technically changed well before I was born; but there was a very strong shift when I was young towards seeing having children as a duty, yes, but also something that was expected to make you better off as well in the long run - to being something that's really just absurdly expensive and dangerous and gains you nothing more than bragging rights in the best case.

        And that's not necessarily a bad thing, overpopulation may or may not be a real worry, taking no sides on that at all - but of course this reduces fertility. Particularly when combined with sex education and ready availability of contraception.

        "And while religion does correlate strongly with fertility, I think the correlation is confounded (except in the case of Mormons...). In particular I think the main issues driving low fertility in the west are cultural in nature - religion just tends to exclude people from these cultures. You can also go about it the other way. China has been disproportionately secular for many centuries. In modern times you can't even become a member of the Chinese Communist Party unless you are an atheist. Before the 1 child policy China, for all of its irreligion, had one of the highest birth rates in the world - the reason they now have 1.4 billion people and we have 330 million."

        The CCP is effectively a megacult, as intolerant as any crusader kingdom or islamic caliphate.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:14PM (#925718)

        Can't you see what happens when one group stops procreating while another group continues pumping out the babies? (numbers)

        I don't care. I will have lived my life out by then, unburdened by any thoughts on what I've brought kids into.

        You also assume that low class people will continue to act constantly. But I see even them refraining from getting kids until they feel their finances are sufficiently stable, except for the few that were "young and dumb".

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:24PM (#925722)

          While I can't say I agree with you, I have immense respect for your honesty. I think if all people spoke similarly we'd be a million times better off as a nation because there would be no pretext.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:48PM (#925758)

        > Can't you see what happens when one group stops procreating while another group continues pumping out the babies?

        What typically happens in USA (a nation of immigrants) is that after a few generations, these "groups" start to intermarry and have kids, and the hard group lines slowly dissolve. As we progress toward a nation of mutts (instead of purebreds) we become less high strung and generally better all around. This has been going on for longer than the USA has been independent, and I don't see any sign of it stopping.

        From time to time parts of the USA population is scared silly by leaders who play the "bad group" card (race, color, etc), but this too passes.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:43PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:43PM (#925781)

        Can't you see what happens when one group stops procreating while another group continues pumping out the babies?

        1. Who decided to divide humanity up into groups, rather than starting from the idea that humans are a single species?
        2. Who's deciding what these groups are?
        3. Who's deciding who is in what group, factoring in that most divisions between humans are spectrums with lots of mixing rather than sharp lines?
        4. Why do these groups that you've picked out even matter?

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @02:16AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @02:16AM (#925863)

          1. God.
          2. The highest-ranking group, i.e. white males
          3. Clearly not the pink-hair SJW posing the questions!
          4. Correct, most of the groups do not matter except when you need cheap labor.

          • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 29 2019, @05:41AM

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday November 29 2019, @05:41AM (#925937) Journal

            This "had the most kids" crude view of success is actually "sowing the seeds of your own destruction". Even more so if the kids are all nearly alike, all chips off the old block. Because then, they must therefore compete with one another and their own parents more than anyone else, for the scarce resources and opportunities that they have the knowledge and ability to exploit.

            If on the other hand, some of them differentiate significantly, then one way in which they will almost certainly differ is in the quantity of offspring they feel able to nurture.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:42PM (#926039)

          You have a kid. A deeply religious, deeply insular, family in rural Alabama have a kid. Do you think these kids, as adults, will just hold some random set of values? Or will those values be heavily influenced by their parents and the cultures in which they grew up? You can even indulge the neo-liberal fantasy of genetics being all fake and still see the issue.

          The natural retort is that cultures can and do change. Absolutely true. But there's no 'arrow of time' for cultures requiring they "improve", let alone "improve" meaning do what we think they should do. The western world has become more secular, scientific and tolerant. So we naturally envision everybody will do the same. But it's so peculiar because at the exact same thing this was happening the Islamic world was going through a rather different path. Many Islamic nations used to be the center of learning and education. Even things we take for granted today like Algebra derives from Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. But then something fun happened. Around 1080AD along came this fellow by the name of Al-Ghazali [wikipedia.org]. Al-Ghazali was an Islamic scholar and philosopher. But one day he apparently tired of religious debates and introspection. And so he came up with a new philosophy.

          Why does a leaf burn when exposed to fire? Is it because as it reaches a certain temperature? No! Al-Ghazali, in his noted work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers' answered not only this question, but all questions with a single fell swoop. It sets alight because God willed it so, and only because God willed it so. He completely denied all natural and logical laws. No, things happen only, and exclusively only, because God wills each and every thing to happen exactly when it happens. To consider otherwise is to question God himself.

          This idea was rapidly and widely accepted. The Islamic Golden Age would churn on for a bit longer on inertia, but this event is undoubtedly what set into motion its end. But I think it's disconcertingly easy to see why this happened. His ideological view dramatically simplified the world and gave people a simple and concise answer to everything without having to deal with difficult and uncomfortable questions. It feels, in many ways, quite similar to certain social ideologies of the West today. But as the answers it gave were fake, Islamic society began to decline precipitously. And that trend continues to this day. The denial of nature is much more emotionally pleasant than the acceptance of it. Ideological fantasies provide no truth or progress, but they do provide immense comfort.

          ----

          The example there inadvertently hits on multiple very closely related topics, but the primary point is that there is no reason to just have blind faith that culture will go in any particular way. The way cultures will go will be decided today by those who create the children who will create the cultures of tomorrow. Imagine there are two groups, about the same size. One has a fertility rate of 1.5, the other has a fertility rate of 2.5. Doesn't seem like that huge a difference, an average of one more child per couple per generation. Start with 1000 of each group. What are their populations after 3 generations - about 50 years, give or take, if we assume the first generation is already of age? It's stupefying how rapidly things change. You go from 1000:1000 to 422:1954! Now introduce democracy. In a single human lifetime you go from 50%:50% in elections to 18%:82%!

          I don't think people appreciate how remarkable this is. Again, that is ~50 years to go from a completely even ideological split, to a 4:1 landslide, based nothing more than a "slight" difference in fertility.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:54AM (#925929)

        I for one won't live to see the glorious day when this country is decisively Amish, but it will be a great day indeed.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:28PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:28PM (#925695)

    Automation is proportional to a population.

    All automation will do is increasing the effective productivity rate. So perhaps today it takes 1 person working to generate the basic goods and services to provide for 3 other people, meaning you need at least 25% labor participation just to keep society churning. Automation will simply change that to e.g. it taking 1 person to generate the basic goods and services for 30 people, so you need a 3% labor participation rate just to keep society churning. But the point being that it doesn't really matter if you have a population of 3,000 or 3 billion - you get the exact same problem.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:02PM (18 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:02PM (#925714) Journal

      So perhaps today it takes 1 person working to generate the basic goods and services to provide for 3 other people, meaning you need at least 25% labor participation just to keep society churning. Automation will simply change that to e.g. it taking 1 person to generate the basic goods and services for 30 people, so you need a 3% labor participation rate just to keep society churning.

      The historical consequence of such productivity increases has been to create more basic goods and services - such as the vast array of electrical devices in use in homes today.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:23PM (15 children)

        by deimtee (3272) on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:23PM (#925751) Journal

        Historically, yes. But there is a saturation point. You can only eat so much food, drive so many cars, and watch so many screens before you say "I don't want any more".

        Currently we average what, 30 or 40 years of work per person? Hell, add unemployment and extra schooling, unemployables, etc. and call it 20 or 10 years. It doesn't matter. At some point automation will provide a lifetimes worth of food, goods, and services for an input of less than that 10 person-years of work. At that point you have to have either make-work or unemployment. What about when it gets down to 1 year's worth of work? 90% unemployment?

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:16PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:16PM (#925794) Journal

          Historically, yes. But there is a saturation point. You can only eat so much food, drive so many cars, and watch so many screens before you say "I don't want any more".

          You'd think. But somehow we've figured out more to want.

          At some point automation will provide a lifetimes worth of food, goods, and services for an input of less than that 10 person-years of work.

          What makes you think we're not already there? A few items are driving most of the costs. Drop those and we're pretty close.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:20AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:20AM (#925890)

            It might be higher than the civilised world, but there is a limit to how much even Americans can eat.

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @03:59AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @03:59AM (#925915) Journal
              But they can eat better quality and prepared meals made of more exotic ingredients.
        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:28PM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:28PM (#925800) Journal

          Historically, yes. But there is a saturation point. You can only eat so much food, drive so many cars, and watch so many screens before you say "I don't want any more".

          Funny how we haven't found it yet.

          At some point automation will provide a lifetimes worth of food, goods, and services for an input of less than that 10 person-years of work.

          The question is will that be what people want by that time? Indications are that they'll want more than that.

          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday November 29 2019, @03:16AM (4 children)

            by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 29 2019, @03:16AM (#925889) Journal

            Given the number of "Simplify" and "De-clutter" movements going on we are getting close.
            50 years ago most people didn't throw out things just because they had too much stuff.
            150 years ago most people would have thought you were insane for throwing out just about anything.

            Funny how we haven't found it yet.

            You only hit a saturation point once. That's why it's called a point.

            --
            If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @04:04AM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @04:04AM (#925916) Journal

              Given the number of "Simplify" and "De-clutter" movements going on we are getting close.

              Those movements are reactionary. That means that there's some more materialistic aggregate they're reacting against.

              You only hit a saturation point once.

              Or like in logistic curves, you never hit the saturation point at all.

              My view is that we're way off from any sort of saturation point. How long do those "Simplify" and "De-clutter" people live again?

              • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday November 30 2019, @01:29AM (2 children)

                by deimtee (3272) on Saturday November 30 2019, @01:29AM (#926217) Journal

                Those movements are reactionary. That means that there's some more materialistic aggregate they're reacting against.

                Yeah, they are reacting against their dwellings being too full of stuff they don't use.

                Or like in logistic curves, you never hit the saturation point at all.

                We are talking macro-economics and you invoke Zeno's paradox. Really?

                My view is that we're way off from any sort of saturation point. How long do those "Simplify" and "De-clutter" people live again?

                The ones I know are normal people who have simply decided they don't want a house full of junk. I assume they live pretty much as long as everyone else.

                Just thought of it ; the tiny house phenomenon is another indicator that some people are starting to say "I've got enough".

                --
                If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:16AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:16AM (#926255) Journal

                  We are talking macro-economics and you invoke Zeno's paradox. Really?

                  No, it's a property of the logistics curve. You never hit the saturation point.

                  My view is that we're way off from any sort of saturation point. How long do those "Simplify" and "De-clutter" people live again?

                  The ones I know are normal people who have simply decided they don't want a house full of junk. I assume they live pretty much as long as everyone else.

                  So in other words, they don't live very long. Longevity is one of those avenues of growth you're ignoring when you claim that we're at saturation.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:45PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:45PM (#926389) Journal
                  Let me elaborate on my previous post. Too often economic growth is purely seen as more people, more stuff, more running around, or more units of currency. Ultimately though, it's more value. And there's plenty of wants beyond merely food, shelter, and stuff.

                  Longevity is one of the biggest of those wants, but far from the only one. There's travel, the obtaining of knowledge, bringing the entirety of humanity out of poverty, setting up new businesses, etc. Doesn't make sense to speak of saturation when we're not even close.
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday November 29 2019, @03:13AM (5 children)

          by dry (223) on Friday November 29 2019, @03:13AM (#925887) Journal

          War seems to be the usual solution. Break a bunch of stuff that needs rebuilding, employ people to kill or build killing machines etc.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:46PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:46PM (#926391) Journal
            A "usual solution" that hasn't been employed in the developed world for more than 70 years. Perhaps the model doesn't actually work?
            • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:45PM (3 children)

              by dry (223) on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:45PM (#926440) Journal

              Yes, you're right. America spends fuck all on their military and hasn't had a war since 1945.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:56PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:56PM (#926446) Journal
                "America" is not the only place in the developed world. The rest seems to do quite well economically with lower military budgets.
                • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 30 2019, @10:18PM (1 child)

                  by dry (223) on Saturday November 30 2019, @10:18PM (#926565) Journal

                  Quite a few developed countries sell arms, others do resource extraction to sell to the ones creating arms.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 01 2019, @05:31AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 01 2019, @05:31AM (#926645) Journal
                    You're reaching. For example, US sales or transfers of military arms [wikipedia.org] is on the order of 0.1% (well really less than half that) of its GDP. Same goes for the other countries on the list in the link.

                    And what does "others do resource extraction to sell to the ones creating arms." mean? Is Norway spending a huge fraction of its oil/hydroelectric revenue on foreign military gear?
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:43PM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:43PM (#925805) Journal

        The historical consequence of such productivity increases has been to create more basic goods and services - such as the vast array of electrical devices in use in homes today.

        Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.
        If the market can't expand, those goods/services can no longer sustain a price that's profitable. For an example, the textile industry in Britain when Gandhi's message took hold.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:18AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 29 2019, @02:18AM (#925864) Journal

          Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.

          OTOH, you're not going to get a better indication of future performance.