SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Half a million fewer children? The coming COVID baby bust:
The COVID-19 episode will likely lead to a large, lasting baby bust. The pandemic has thrust the country into an economic recession. Economic reasoning and past evidence suggest that this will lead people to have fewer children. The decline in births could be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births next year. We base this expectation on lessons drawn from economic studies of fertility behavior, along with data presented here from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the 1918 Spanish Flu.
[...] When the public health crisis first took hold, some people playfully speculated that there would be a spike in births in nine months, as people were "stuck home" with their romantic partners. Such speculation is based on persistent myths about birth spikes occurring nine months after blizzards or major electricity blackouts. As it turns out, those stories tend not to hold up to statistical examination (Udry, 1970). But the COVID-19 crisis is amounting to much more than a temporary stay-at-home order. It is leading to tremendous economic loss, uncertainty, and insecurity. That is why birth rates will tumble.
[...] There is ample evidence that birth rates are, in fact, pro-cyclical. This is shown, for instance, in the work by Dettling and Kearney (2014) described above. Their analysis of birth rates in metropolitan areas finds that all else equal, a one percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in birth rates. Schaller (2016) analyzes the relationship between state-level unemployment rates and birth rates, and finds that a one percentage-point increase in state-year unemployment rates is associated with a 0.9 to 2.2 percent decrease in birth rates. Other evidence shows that women whose husbands lose their jobs at some point during their marriage ultimately have fewer children (Lindo, 2010). This suggests that transitory changes in economic conditions lead to changes in birth rates.
[...] What are the likely implications of the COVID-19 episode for fertility? The monthly unemployment rate jumped from 3.5 percent to 14.7 percent in April and to 13.3 percent in May. Note that the BLS also indicate that technical issues in collecting these data likely mean that the actual unemployment rates in those months were likely 5 and 3 percentage points higher, respectively. That would bring them to about 19.7 and 16.3 percent. Although it is difficult to forecast the 2020 annual unemployment rate, assuming a 7 to 10 percentage-point jump to 10.6 to 13.6 percent seems reasonable. Based on the findings presented above, this economic shock alone implies a 7 to 10 percent drop in births next year. With 3.8 million births occurring in 2019, that would amount to a decline of between 266,000 and 380,000 births in 2021.
On top of the economic impact, there will likely be a further decline in births as a direct result of the public health crisis and the uncertainty and anxiety it creates, and perhaps to some extent, social distancing. Our analysis of the Spanish Flu indicated a 15 percent decline in annual births in a pandemic that was not accompanied by a major recession. And this occurred during a period in which no modern contraception existed to easily regulated fertility.
Combining these two effects, we could see a drop of perhaps 300,000 to 500,000 births in the U.S. Additional reductions in births may be seen if the labor market remains weak beyond 2020. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are likely to be long-lasting and will lead to a permanent loss of income for many people. We expect that many of these births will not just be delayed – but will never happen. There will be a COVID-19 baby bust. That will be yet another cost of this terrible episode.
Journal References:
1.) Melissa S . Kearney, Phillip B . Levine. Subsidized Contraception, Fertility, and Sexual Behavior, (DOI: rest.91.1.137)
2.) Melissa S. Kearney, Riley Wilson. Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom, Review of Economics and Statistics (DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00739)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 04 2020, @12:39AM
Yes/No. That's an overly simplistic analysis. Certainly a "baby bust" CAN be a good thing, but that's not guaranteed. It depends on lots of variables, not all of which are known, or even guessed at. (I mean, we don't guess that the variable is significant.)
Certainly there are too many people in the world, probably by a factor of about 10. But how you get from here to there is extremely significant. Easy access to video games and the internet is probably a good way to do it, but I'm not sure, because it decreases socialization, and leads to "pile on" bullying, etc. And people believing all sorts of garbage because that's what those they communicate with believe. And since they've never met them they can't tell that they're drooling idiots or mono-maniacal fanatics. (People are pretty bad at making that kind of determination of their friends, even if they know them well.)
So that's one thing. Having lots of expensive toys that people can buy tends to decrease population growth, but at the expense of greater use of resources. That's another thing.
Actually, a plague is probably the only thing that has the potential to work rapidly enough (baring things like nuclear war), but COVID isn't deadly enough to do the job. And "long COVID" means that it causes an increased use of resources. It needs to be about 5 to 10 times as deadly, and it would be nice if it went for a "clean kill", though I can't imagine any natural disease that operated that way. COVID is probably as close to that as a natural disease could ever get. The way it gives a lot of people hypo-oxygenation without them being aware of it while they're spreading the disease is about as painless an effect as a natural disease could manage. But it appears (based on reading) that only some people get that effect, and it's also transitory.
Given everything, I think we really need to be working on durable nearly-closed ecosystems. There seems to be a good chance that the natural ecosystem will end up broken. E.g. plankton are the source of most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, and there have been several reports that they are dying off. Well, there's lots of different species of plankton, and so far a new one has (usually) moved in when an old has died off. But when you decrease diversity, the whole network becomes more fragile. (Also see "oceanic dead zones" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/dead-zones/ [nationalgeographic.com] and realize that we don't really understand what causes them or how to fix them. We've got very reasonable ideas, and they *MAY* be correct.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.