Millennials choosing to be DINKs (dual-income-no-kids) could push GDP down by as much as 4%

[1srelluc]

MSN

www.msn.com

Deciding whether or not to have children is a deeply personal choice for any individual, but an increasing resistance to becoming a parent now presents challenges to society as a whole.

The crude birth rate in the U.S. has dropped by more than half since the 1960s. Per the St. Louis Fed, sixty years ago approximately 24 babies were born per 1,000 people, in 2022 that figure stood at 11.


This drop—combined with the fact that the nation's population is living longer—is a serious concern for economists who question how economies will function with fewer people available to do the work.

Melinda Mills is a professor of demography and population health at Oxford University's Nuffield Department of Population Health. Mills explains: "Sustained low fertility combined with longer life expectancy results in aging populations.

"This causes strains in the labor market such as health care for older populations, the closing of schools, rethinking housing and infrastructure, and rethinking pension systems and age of retirement."

The resulting drop in GDP from this aging population could be as much as 4%, James Pomeroy, HSBC's global economist, previously told Business Insider.

Previously experts believed that economies would see a post-COVID "baby bump," spurred by a brief uptick in births in 2021.

I call BS.

Sure, families are getting smaller and it’s not just because of economics/finances. Yet kids are still being born. It’s almost like people are free to do what they want even if that results in fewer consumers and workers. The horror.

Let’s keep listening to central planning economists though.

It’s terrifying for the .gov because it’s dependent on the size of the tax base. Fewer people mean less tax revenue and no part of the bureaucracy wants that.

 

[ReinyDays]

I agree with this being BS ... twice as many folks in the work force wouldn't lower GDP by 4% ...

Go read Brave New World again ... this is a well-trodden path here ...

 

[braalian]

All that matters is per capita income

 

[jwoodie]

twice as many folks in the work force wouldn't lower GDP by 4%

Despite its misleading title, the article is actually addressing the long term effects of fewer people in the workforce. As fewer children are born and the general population ages into retirement, fewer productive people will be available to support the GDP.

 

[ReinyDays]

Despite its misleading title, the article is actually addressing the long term effects of fewer people in the workforce. As fewer children are born and the general population ages into retirement, fewer productive people will be available to support the GDP.

As well as fewer people who need supporting by the GDP ... we'd have to lower Social Security taxes because there's fewer people in retirement ...

I live in the United Sates and our population is growing, even though our futility rates are below replacement and consistent with Western Europe and Communist China ... whatever the state of the American Dream, everyone else dreams of a Green Card ... no shortage of folk pouring across our borders ...

 

[SweetSue92]

MSN

www.msn.com

Deciding whether or not to have children is a deeply personal choice for any individual, but an increasing resistance to becoming a parent now presents challenges to society as a whole.

The crude birth rate in the U.S. has dropped by more than half since the 1960s. Per the St. Louis Fed, sixty years ago approximately 24 babies were born per 1,000 people, in 2022 that figure stood at 11.


This drop—combined with the fact that the nation's population is living longer—is a serious concern for economists who question how economies will function with fewer people available to do the work.

Melinda Mills is a professor of demography and population health at Oxford University's Nuffield Department of Population Health. Mills explains: "Sustained low fertility combined with longer life expectancy results in aging populations.

"This causes strains in the labor market such as health care for older populations, the closing of schools, rethinking housing and infrastructure, and rethinking pension systems and age of retirement."

The resulting drop in GDP from this aging population could be as much as 4%, James Pomeroy, HSBC's global economist, previously told Business Insider.

Previously experts believed that economies would see a post-COVID "baby bump," spurred by a brief uptick in births in 2021.

I call BS.

Sure, families are getting smaller and it’s not just because of economics/finances. Yet kids are still being born. It’s almost like people are free to do what they want even if that results in fewer consumers and workers. The horror.

Let’s keep listening to central planning economists though.

It’s terrifying for the .gov because it’s dependent on the size of the tax base. Fewer people mean less tax revenue and no part of the bureaucracy wants that.

Boomers--selfish generation. Raised:

Millennials-- selfish generation

So, here we are.

 

[initforme]

Boomers--selfish generation. Raised:

Millennials-- selfish generation

So, here we are.

Respectfully I don't understand what's selfish about a dual income couple choosing not to have kids if thats not what they want. There's no duty nor responsibility to have them.

 

[initforme]

If fewer workers are here to support the gdp is that the end of the world?

 

[Mac-7]

Millennials choosing to be DINKs (dual-income-no-kids) could push GDP down by as much as 4%​

No kids

But they all have dogs that they spend a lot of money on

 

[initforme]

Millennials choosing to be DINKs (dual-income-no-kids) could push GDP down by as much as 4%​

No kids

But they all have dogs that they spend a lot of money on

And that's not at all a bad thing. It's a choice. A growing number simply don't want kids. Big whoop.

 

[ReinyDays]

Boomers--selfish generation. Raised:

Millennials-- selfish generation

So, here we are.

You know I've lived too long when my lazy good-for-nothing slacker children start complaining about their lazy good-for-nothing slacker children ...

The Slack has just begun ...

 

[1srelluc]

I look around me and think small wonder couples don't want kids these days. Too damn expensive.

If both work they are looking at 5-6 years of child care....Just call it 52K+.

Once they get them in school a fuckin' snowfake hits the ground and they cancel classes....So there goes a personal day or worse yet no pay for the day.....Same if they are in daycare as they usually follow the schools as far as closing.

Grandparents are starting to turn their phones off so they don't have to watch them.

They look around them and see "poor" kids getting all kinds of benefits while their parent is watching soaps on TV all day.

Hell, they may as well enjoy the fruits of their labor themselves and that does not include crotch fruit.

 

[SweetSue92]

Respectfully I don't understand what's selfish about a dual income couple choosing not to have kids if thats not what they want. There's no duty nor responsibility to have them.

On an individual-couple level I agree with you. As a trend, it's a mark of a selfish generation. Especially the way it's approached: "We're DINKS we go on all these vacations", etc.

 

[1srelluc]

On an individual-couple level I agree with you. As a trend, it's a mark of a selfish generation. Especially the way it's approached: "We're DINKS we go on all these vacations", etc.

That makes no sense at all.

Maybe we are looking at a generation that has the good sense not to burden themselves for a quarter of their lives.

Don't worry, you will have plenty of Hispanics and Hattians to try to teach.

 

[initforme]

On an individual-couple level I agree with you. As a trend, it's a mark of a selfish generation. Especially the way it's approached: "We're DINKS we go on all these vacations", etc.

Yes the bragging part is can do without. But I do believe as a nation we should never insist young married couples need to have kids if theyd rather fulfill their lives working, saving, travelling, etc.

 

[justoffal]

MSN

www.msn.com

Deciding whether or not to have children is a deeply personal choice for any individual, but an increasing resistance to becoming a parent now presents challenges to society as a whole.

The crude birth rate in the U.S. has dropped by more than half since the 1960s. Per the St. Louis Fed, sixty years ago approximately 24 babies were born per 1,000 people, in 2022 that figure stood at 11.


This drop—combined with the fact that the nation's population is living longer—is a serious concern for economists who question how economies will function with fewer people available to do the work.

Melinda Mills is a professor of demography and population health at Oxford University's Nuffield Department of Population Health. Mills explains: "Sustained low fertility combined with longer life expectancy results in aging populations.

"This causes strains in the labor market such as health care for older populations, the closing of schools, rethinking housing and infrastructure, and rethinking pension systems and age of retirement."

The resulting drop in GDP from this aging population could be as much as 4%, James Pomeroy, HSBC's global economist, previously told Business Insider.

Previously experts believed that economies would see a post-COVID "baby bump," spurred by a brief uptick in births in 2021.

I call BS.

Sure, families are getting smaller and it’s not just because of economics/finances. Yet kids are still being born. It’s almost like people are free to do what they want even if that results in fewer consumers and workers. The horror.

Let’s keep listening to central planning economists though.

It’s terrifying for the .gov because it’s dependent on the size of the tax base. Fewer people mean less tax revenue and no part of the bureaucracy wants that.

Huh? Why would it push GDP down?

 

[initforme]

Huh? Why would it push GDP down?

I don't think a smaller workforce is somehow a terrible thing.

 

[1srelluc]

Huh? Why would it push GDP down?

I guess the state figures they would have fewer tax slaves in the future.

 

[justoffal]

I don't think a smaller workforce is somehow a terrible thing.

I don't think a smaller workforce is somehow a terrible thing.

So you got two people, no kids and both full time. Wouldn't that be more productive? Ok....I suppose if they don't produce kids then the future is in question.

 

[initforme]

The nation believes in work work work. So people are now working. Then there's somehow an issue with that. Isn't 2 people busting their butt's what the nation wants?