The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years
I&#x27;m not sure I completely agree with the economic argument, particularly because birth rates and wealthiness tend to move in opposite directions and because a comparative analysis doesn&#x27;t show that strong welfare states which protect a person&#x27;s income, income stability and alleviate all the costs of being a parent, don&#x27;t show strong birth rates either. It feels like getting children is still very much a choice, but that our cultural norms about what a &#x27;proper life&#x27; means has changed. No longer as a young person do I feel as compelled to marry, get a home in a suburb with a yard and a dog not to be cast out or judged. It&#x27;s not because it&#x27;s more difficult for me to afford kids than my parents or their parents, who struggled financially more than I do and had to work more hours, had less leisure time, fewer luxuries etc. I think it&#x27;s a bit too easy to say &#x27;kids these days saw parent&#x27; savings disappear in the financial crisis&#x27; as if their parents&#x27; parents didn&#x27;t see their parents in world war ii, and their grandparents in the great depression as a reason not to have kids. Again, wealth and birth rates move in opposite directions. Kids used to be a form of welfare system, too, you had no state or business to give you a pension or pay for your care, but your kids did. Now we&#x27;re rich enough where kids aren&#x27;t needed as an economic asset (working the land) or welfare asset (caring for you in retirement). But to say they&#x27;re less affordable than before, I&#x27;m not so sure.<p>Most of the predictions about the welfare state are true, though. In that some of its effects mimic a ponzi scheme.<p>I&#x27;d urge everyone and anyone to look up an age pyramid for their country from 1950 and onwards. It&#x27;s absolutely telling. Preferably an animation.<p>e.g. Japan here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.populationpyramid.net&#x2F;japan&#x2F;1950&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.populationpyramid.net&#x2F;japan&#x2F;1950&#x2F;</a><p>You can click through every 5 years. It&#x27;s like a snake with food passing through it&#x27;s body, starting with a big blob of young people who gradually move into old age, without replacement. The proportion of young (suppose an arbitrary &lt;40 or &gt;=40) to old completely flips over. In Japan it was 75% in 1950, but just 44.5% in 2010. If you take 65+ as a threshold, it was just 5% in 1950, but 23% in 2010. That&#x27;s 4x as many retirees to support on a dwindling young (mostly) working population. 5% 65+ and 95 &lt;65 is a 1:19 retiree to young (often working) person. 23% vs 77% is less than 1:4.<p>And that matters a ton because there&#x27;s a gigantic age asymmetry in terms of expenditure by age group in certain fields. Take healthcare expenses by age: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jamanetwork.com&#x2F;data&#x2F;Journals&#x2F;JAMA&#x2F;935941&#x2F;joi160128f2.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jamanetwork.com&#x2F;data&#x2F;Journals&#x2F;JAMA&#x2F;935941&#x2F;joi160128f...</a><p>You basically spend a ton at birth and as an old person. With low birth rates and massive improvements to healthcare increasing life expectancy, we&#x27;re heading for a disaster. The tax base is rapidly depleting and the tax burden is rapidly increasing.