a newly released u.n. population study
March 21, 2000 7:45 AM Subscribe
a newly released u.n. population study suggests that because the birth rates in wealthy countries is low and declining, the worker-retired ratio will not be able to support current social programs. "The report found that Japan would need 10 million immigrants every year for the next 50 years to maintain the current working-age to retirement-age ratio. Without migration, figures show it would be necessary to raise the retirement age to 77 to maintain the ratio."
similarly, people have been writing for years about the "birth dirth": declining total fertility rates (tfr) in wealthy countries, and growing tfr in less developed countries.
posted by mmanning at 10:30 AM on March 21, 2000
posted by mmanning at 10:30 AM on March 21, 2000
ummm, make that dearth.
(note to self: use dictionary.)
posted by mmanning at 1:13 PM on March 21, 2000
(note to self: use dictionary.)
posted by mmanning at 1:13 PM on March 21, 2000
The US has been below the ZPG birth rate for a long time. The only reason the population of the US continues to rise is because of immigration.
I think there's going to be a general trend towards a higher retirement age anyway, because people are liviing longer and remaining healthy longer.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:08 PM on March 21, 2000
I think there's going to be a general trend towards a higher retirement age anyway, because people are liviing longer and remaining healthy longer.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:08 PM on March 21, 2000
I thought everyone knew about declining birthrates in industrial countries for a long time. But I remember hearing the U.S. birthrate as 2.1 for every couple, so the U.S. population is increasing without immigration, but only very little. I think we should let in more immigrants.
posted by andy at 2:53 PM on March 21, 2000
posted by andy at 2:53 PM on March 21, 2000
aparantly in austrailia there is a problem with a "backlash against motherhood [which] grows more entrenched each year"
"The Australian Bureau of Statistics forecasts that only 72 per cent of women now entering their childbearing years will ever have children. The other 28 per cent, it estimates, will remain childless, unless the anti-maternity trend of the past 40 years is reversed."
posted by palegirl at 4:14 PM on March 21, 2000
"The Australian Bureau of Statistics forecasts that only 72 per cent of women now entering their childbearing years will ever have children. The other 28 per cent, it estimates, will remain childless, unless the anti-maternity trend of the past 40 years is reversed."
posted by palegirl at 4:14 PM on March 21, 2000
this is not surprising. child care for working a 'normal' 40-hour week: $160.00. My rent broken down weekly: $185.00. A few more bucks and we could live at Kindercare.
posted by helen at 6:03 AM on March 22, 2000
posted by helen at 6:03 AM on March 22, 2000
US Birthrate of 2.1 per couple is not sufficient. The reason is that a large number of adults are not married.
The proper way to calculate birthrate is per adult woman, and on that basis, it's about 1.7, which is too low to sustain the population.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:40 AM on March 22, 2000
The proper way to calculate birthrate is per adult woman, and on that basis, it's about 1.7, which is too low to sustain the population.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:40 AM on March 22, 2000
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tranquileye at 8:22 AM on March 21, 2000