We Should Really Be Having More Kids
But like, seriously, society depends on it.
Jack Raines
April 26, 2023
Hello friends, and welcome to Young Money! If you want to join 37,900 other readers learning about finances and career navigation, subscribe below:
You can check out my other articles and follow me on Twitter and Linkedin too, and if you want to chat with me about newsletter strategy, writing, anything finance, or something else entirely, book a slot here!
Also, just doing one blog post this week! Traveling to Austin for a few days for a crypto conference (lol, it should be interesting). Catch you guys when Iām back.
Today's Young Money is brought to you by iRemedy!
Invest in the Company Disrupting the $130B Medical Supply Industry
The medical supply chain is broken. Between dated suppliers, hidden costs, and negative customer experiencesā¦it needs a serious overhaul.
Enter: iRemedy.
iRemedy replaces the outdated systems plaguing the medical supply chain with a modern, AI-assisted, transparent marketplace system that provides healthcare providers and patients with the highest-quality supplies at the best possible prices.
iRemedy boasts a fast-growing catalog of 500,000+ products, and their user-friendly interface lets customers ditch faxes and confusing order forms for a streamlined experience.
iRemedy is currently running a friends and family style funding round. If you are interested in joining them at the ownerās table to bring much-needed disruption to the medical supply industry, then click here to claim your seat!
Now to todayās pieceĀ š¤
In 27 BC, Caesar Augustus was crowned the first Roman emperor. Widely considered one of Romeās greatest leaders, Augustusās reign marked the beginning of the 200-year Pax Romana.
One reason that the Roman Empire flourished during this time was its first-class transportation and sewage infrastructure that supported densely-populated cities, with Rome itself boasting an estimated one million residents at its peak.
However, these population centers were also susceptible to epidemics, disease, and lead poisoning (lead was commonly used in pipes, eating utensils, and even food and drinks), yielding high infant mortality rates and low life expectancies (maximum ~33 years).
Low life expectancy + expansive territories meant that the Roman Empire needed high birth rates to maintain enough soldiers to defend its borders, and Rome struggled to keep its birth rates above the population replacement rate. This issue was so important that Augustus offered tax breaks for large families and cracked down on abortion and adultery because he believed that ātoo many men spent their energy with prostitutes and concubines and had nothing for their wives, causing population declines.ā
But government efforts never succeeded in meaningfully increasing birth rates.
At the conclusion of the Pax Romana, low birth rates, combined with plague and war, wreaked havoc on Romeās population, and the power structure of the empire shifted to the newer Constantinople. Rome never recovered, with the cityās population dwindling from a peak of 1,000,000 residents in the late second century to ~30,000 by 600 AD.
We humans draw parallels and analogies across time and space because they help us better understand the world around us, and no two Western civilizations have attracted more comparisons than the Roman Empire and the United States of America.
Both nations experienced explosions of wealth and eras of unprecedented peace, both nations were the dominant global powers of their respective eras, and today, the US faces the same issue that plagued Rome 2,000 years ago: declining birth rates.
In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway penned this now timeless exchange:
āHow did you go bankrupt?ā Bill asked. āTwo ways,ā Mike said. āGradually, and then suddenly.ā
We worry about global warfare and pandemics because theyāre big and scary and sudden and could wipe us out with a sudden BANG! But the real existential threat, declining birth rates, will progress like Mikeās bankruptcy: gradually, and then suddenly.
Allow me to demonstrate through some basic arithmetic.
~2.1 children per woman is the typical population replacement rate in a developed country, and the US currently has a total fertility rate (which measures the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age): of 1.84. This means that (assuming this rate holds constant) every 100 parents will yield 92 children and ~85 grandchildren. And keep in mind, rates have been on a steady decline for years.
Itās a bear market for babies.
This isnāt just a US problem. Weāre seeing these trends of sub-replacement fertility rates occurring all over the developed world:
South Korea: 1.11
Spain: 1.29
Japan: 1.39
China: 1.45
Austria: 1.51
Canada: 1.57
Germany: 1.58
United Kingdom: 1.63
Sweden: 1.67
So now you might be thinking, āOkay, declining birth rates āsoundā scary, but who cares? Like, why does it matter?ā
At the individual level, it doesnāt matter. You have every right to think, āItās no one elseās business if I donāt have kids!ā But once a critical mass of individuals decides not to have kids, there are societal consequences.
In her recent piece, Everythingās a Pyramid Scheme, Katie Gatti Tassin highlighted a logical fallacy in the āretire earlyā movement:
Iāve long pointed out the fact that financial independence and early retirement cannot exist at scale, because our economic system would cease functioning. If every young person in their thirties or forties achieved financial independence and quit working, the workforce would be limited to those under the age of 35, effectively removing roughly 66% of the current labor force, or the equivalent of about 44 million peopleā¦
Of course, thereās a funny redundancy in the system: If 44 million working-age people retired en masse and ceased most discretionary spendingā¦corporate profits would drop, the stock market would stutter to a halt, and the returns required to support early retirement would vanish, driving everyone back to work.
Basically, retiring early works for individuals, but it could never work at scale because our economy would collapse without enough workers to keep it functioning smoothly. The Financially Independent, Retire Early (FIRE) movement only works as long as the majority of society fails to FIRE.
Now, back to the babies.
One big reason that our advanced and wealthy societies have become so advanced and wealthy is that growing populations created a growing labor force which, coupled with technological advancements, powered growing economies and widespread wealth creation.
And now, our advanced, wealthy societies have devised systems that allow folks to retire and live their golden years in relative ease and decadence thanks to a combination of personal savings/investments and social safety nets.
These social safety nets are supported by taxes, which are funded by taxpayers, aka workers. And our number of workers has been steadily increasing since the Industrial Revolution.
But now people are having fewer kids, meaning that down the road, weāll have fewer workers. And when life expectancies are higher than ever while birth rates are lower than ever and everyone still wants to retire on timeā¦ well, you see where Iām going with this? The math doesnāt add up.
(Katie actually made this same observation to highlight the absurdity of individualism).
So not to be a complete doomer here, but it feels a lot like weāre climbing the initial ascent on a rollercoaster, and weāre about to hit the apex.
What does the descent look like? I donāt really know, because we havenāt actually seen a large-scale population decline in the modern era, but I imagine it would go something like this:
Social programs that we take for granted will no longer be feasible.
People will have to work longer (youāre already seeing protests about this in France after the pension reform).
Stock and real estate markets will decline as lower populations reduce consumer demand, hurting corporate profits and property values.
So after considering why declining birth rates matter, I had another question: Why, given the risks associated with birth rate declines, are we still experiencing said declines in developed countries?
Like, this problem is pretty obvious, so why arenāt we making more babies?
I have a few hypotheses:
1) Kids are expensive (both in perception and reality).
The US Department of Health & Human Services estimates that the average family with infants would need to pay $16,000 per year to cover the true cost of childcare, and half of US households make less than $70,000 per year. Thatās a big chunk of cash going to raising a kid each year.
Besides the real costs, the perceived costs of childcare scale exponentially with oneās social group. Say youāre a high earner, and you and your spouse take home $200k+ per year.
Do you want your kid to attend a private middle school to improve their chances of gaining acceptance to an elite boarding school to ensure they secure a seat in an Ivy League university which will help them land a coveted job on Wall Street?
Are they going to play travel sports and take music lessons and eat organic foods and drive a nice car?
Thatās going to cost a lot more than $16,000 per year.
Even high-earners are hesitant to have children because they donāt know if they can afford their desired lifestyle for their kids.
2) Widespread contraceptives.
Thousands of years before Planned Parenthood, the ancient Greeks and Romans discovered this cool plant called Silphium. Silphium had a number of medical uses, but it was most popular for its role as a contraceptive: ingesting a chick-pea-sized dose of Silphium prevented pregnancy.
There was just one problem with Silphium: it could only be grown in a narrow strip of fertile land in present-day eastern Libya. The Romans loved Silphium so much that they overused the wonder plant, eventually driving it extinct.
After the disappearance of Silphium, the world didnāt have an effective, safe contraceptive that could be ingested until 1950, when the birth control pill hit the market.
For the first time in 2,000 years, women controlled when and if they wanted to have children. When we have a high degree of control over the childbirth process, the number of unplanned pregnancies will decline, which means the number of total pregnancies will likely decline too.
3) Everyone, regardless of their sex, is focused on their careers.
100 years ago, it was normal for husbands to go to work while their wives took care of the house and/or raised the children. But now? Everyone works. And kids really throw a wrench in climbing the corporate ladder.
Ambitious women donāt want children to derail their careers, and ambitious men donāt want to step off the fast track to partner to spend a few years as stay-at-home dads. So both sexes delay having kids until they have achieved some threshold of success in their professional lives. But the clock doesnāt stop ticking, and every year spent chasing paper is one year not spent chasing two-year-olds around the house.
4) The Bored Parent Hypothesis.
I have this half-baked idea that oneās number of children is inversely related to their availability of fun/interesting alternative activities. If you are a 20-something living on a few dollars a day in an undeveloped country, you donāt really have many things to do (excluding work) besides creating an army of your own miniature genetic replicas.
But if you live in a developed, first-world country in the Year of Our Lord 2023, you have a lot of ways to spend your time that does not involve making babies. You can enjoy a luxury previously unknown to most of our ancestors: chill with your friends. You can travel for fun, ski, engage in this weird modern phenomenon known as āhobbies,ā create art, and learn a foreign language.
You have options.
Subconsciously, we know that children mark the end of this period of vast optionality by introducing a really, really big responsibility. This is the first-world problem of all first-world problems, but I do think that some young people in developed countries today are hesitant to have kids because thereās just a ton of fun stuff to do when you donāt have kids.
Of course, Iām speaking as a young dude in a developed country who thinks thereās a ton of fun stuff that doesnāt involve having kids.
5) There are literally too many potential partners.
While birth rates have been steadily declining, the average age of first marriage has been steadily increasing. These two numbers are related: if you get married later, you literally have less time to have kids.
Something, something, biological clock.
So why are people getting married later? One reason is that the internet has given us a damn-near-infinite number of potential partners.
Historically, guy likes girl, girl likes guy (or the parents arrange the marriage without consulting the kids at all), and then guy and girl get married and have kids.
But now, guy likes girl, girl likes guy, guy refuses to show how much he likes girl while girl plays hard-to-get to keep guy interested, and guy and girl enter a 4-month relationship-adjacent purgatory where they go on dates and sleep together but donāt acknowledge the relationship itself until one party inevitably stops talking to the other party to see what else is out there, and then the whole cycle repeats.
āDatingā looks the way it does today because everyone is replaceable when the dating pool has millions of options. Instead of working through a road bump in oneās relationship, you can treat every minor inconvenience as an opportunity to look for someone ābetter.ā
This weird dating carousel can last for years as we take longer and longer to commit, giving us less and less time to have kids.
The irony of this whole thing is that it was our very economic prosperity that created the conditions that could unwind the whole thing:
The desire for everyone to āget aheadā has made it really expensive for your kids to get ahead
Medical advancements have allowed us to be tactical with our pregnancies
Previously unavailable career opportunities have led many folks to put off having children to pursue those opportunities
Our abundance of wealth has provided us with near-limitless entertainment and activities that donāt involve having kids
And the internet turned the whole world into a potential dating pool, making commitment next to impossible
And now we face this really weird Prisonerās Dilemma:
Any individual person can delay having children to enjoy our abundance of everything, and their world will function just fine. But if every individual person neglects to have kids any time soon, the whole system grinds to a halt. The only way to ensure that everyone wins is by everyone having more kids.
Maybe society really is just one big pyramid scheme.
So I guess we should probably start having more kids. Or at least yāall should, anyway. I donāt really want to be part of the solution anytime soon, respectfully.
- Jack
If you liked this piece, make sure to subscribe by adding your email below!
Jack's Picks
One of the hardest things about running my own business (yes, this blog is a business) is managing my finances on the back end. Ocho is one of the best financial educational resources for business owners, and they offer solo 401ks for self-employed folks like myself. Theyāre hosting a free one-day virtual conference (feat. speakers like Ramit Sethi) on building wealth as a business owner on April 27th, reserve your seat here.*
Iāve been on a big Derek Sivers kick lately, and actually read two of his books over the weekend after listening to him on Tim Ferrissās podcast. Check out Anything You WantĀ and Hell Yeah or No. Both are fantastic books that can be read in around an hour.
I also read Stephen Pressfieldās Turning Pro yesterday, and I have to say itās a must-read for anyone pursuing a creative endeavor.
Trying to get back on my reading grind, thatās three books since Saturday.
*This is an affiliate deal, but Iām currently looking at their solo 401k offering myself.
How was today's piece? |