You must log in or register to comment.

nem_erdekel t1_ix96ggj wrote

Maybe if we had good jobs and could afford housing we would procreate. Maybe.. I don't even have energy to fornicate and that's a big problem!


VoraciousTrees t1_ixaa843 wrote

Good enough jobs to have either:

  • One parent working and the other at home raising children.

  • Both parents working and able to afford fulltime childcare.


Enders-game t1_ixa6yb1 wrote

Women have choices and will opt out if they believe there are better options for her or will put it off until it becomes difficult to conceive. There are several other factors at play. But Eastern Europe, the Baltics and central Europe are far from the only places that will have to deal with this.


Effective-Dig8734 t1_ixc4ag9 wrote

It’s actually the complete opposite💀 generally poorer places reproduce more while richer more prosperous places reproduce less


Chromaedre t1_ixcr5s5 wrote

When you don't have social protection (health, retired pension, etc), your children become your social protection. Also might as well have a lot of 'em to raise the chances one survive.


Leemour t1_ixd8yjw wrote

The funny thing is that pension schemes dont work in most places. My grandparents rely on my parents, and Im ready to support my parents along with my children in the future, because these pensions are useless when the economy is so volatile.

Even in Germany there is a name for the phenomenon of "pensioners poverty" its so frustrating.


Miketogoz t1_ixdo5qn wrote

Meanwhile in Spain pensioners are richer (or less poor) than the working population. I'd have it your way, honestly.


Chromaedre t1_ixddp7e wrote

Yeah same thing in France for some of our retirees, to the point where you either need to plan for a complementary revenue or never stop working / retire at a grotesque age (that's why we were on strike lately).


Spock_di_Cheshire t1_ixcdjnr wrote

In different culturale contest. So was also in Europa 50/60 years ago, now we want before something that give us security and later we make a family.


YWAK98alum t1_ixcspds wrote

It's even more than that. Many developed countries are richer, at least on paper, because they reproduced less. It frees more women for work in the part of the economy that shows up in GDP statistics.

The fundamental challenge of states and nations trying to reverse demographic decline is to be able to offer a strong quality of life on a lower GDP per capita. One in which a lot of GDP goes "off book" as parents (probably mostly women) work for their families instead of their employers. (GDP is a bad measurement for this because a stay-at-home-mom who cares for three kids adds nothing to measured GDP, but if they send their kids to daycare and pay €3000/mo, then measured GDP increases by €36,000 for the year for the exact same child-rearing.)

And that's a tough challenge, and most developed countries' natalist solutions right now are only tinkering around the edges. We're not at the level yet where we would say, for example, "we will give you a small family-sized home in a good neighborhood when your first child is born and you can live there rent-free until your last child is grown, even if you have four kids spread out so much that that's a period of 30+ years."


NYD3030 t1_ixcuklc wrote

I think your suggestion is the level at which we'd need to change society to have a measurable impact. Western societies are increasingly market oriented and people are trained to make every decision like little economists. If you want to raise birthrates radically, being a mom needs to pay better than maybe 70% of jobs you could get otherwise.


YWAK98alum t1_ixcvu8t wrote

We can go in both directions on this: make raising a family more economically attractive, but also try not to condition people to think about everything in economic terms, or at least to think beyond mere GDP terms. I've known families that have belatedly come to that realization when they had a third kid (though of course fewer families are reaching that milestone), that it actually saved money for the lower earner (generally the wife) to stay home rather than pay for both daycare and all the other things that they had to pay for in order to support her working outside the home.


NYD3030 t1_ixcy1nt wrote

I would like to condition people to stop thinking about everything in terms of individual economic maximization, but I don't see how. All the old institutions that did this - religion, civic life, clubs, societies, even organized labor - are gone. They've been replaced by apps which are explicitly designed to insert the market into previously non-market areas of life.

I don't know how to undo that, and I'm not sure your average 25 year old even wants to. So yes, I agree with you. I'm just pessimistic that it will happen, so we need to lean heavily on the purely economic levers.


[deleted] t1_ix9v094 wrote



fffyhhiurfgghh t1_ixa11ib wrote

They’re doing a shit job, just hit 8billion. World population trending upward not down.


Ayrnas t1_ixa8yep wrote

That's mostly the work of two 3rd world countries.


_Rabbert_Klein t1_ixbkyyl wrote

Population GROWTH is declining, and is set to hit a plateau in the coming decades. Then the population will peak and start to decline.


hugozap t1_ixczvui wrote

Well, comparing to other periods in human history we are not that bad. It's just that we are more scared now.


avatarname t1_ix9xz9j wrote

To be honest though, as a Latvian I can say that in 1990 a lot of people in Latvia were recent Russian speaking immigrants from other Soviet republics who left, either to go back to their countries or West in the later years so the decline has been not as much about ethnic Latvians or Latvians who have lived here for generations, but of first generation immigrants.

But yes, it is and will be a challenge going forward.


pcvcolin t1_ixb1ffb wrote

Do you have some thoughts about how this can lead to "Western tourism" of a less ideal sort, that is, people from the U.S. or Canada (for example) visiting Latvia looking specifically for a wife (and having expectations that Latvian women will be "available," etc.)?

Note: for the U.S., last I checked, the Visa waiver program includes:

Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

So, Latvians can go to the U.S.A. without a visa if there has been a "romantic arrangement" between a U.S. citizen and Latvian citizen in Latvia (or if they have agreed online to do so). Not saying I think this is a wonderful practice or anything - in fact it has inherent dangers - just making the observation that it is possible. It's routine practice for the U.S. to keep on with the Visa waiver program for countries that meet certain standards. This in turn has implications for travel and net outmigration over time.


YWAK98alum t1_ixcr3gf wrote

Even ignoring the possible ick factor of marriage tourism (obviously we'd be talking about here only about the self-selecting subset of people who see no ick factor), I don't see how that marriage-market dynamic would work unless there were a substantial gender imbalance in emigration, leaving more women than men. That's not what I'd bet is happening.


pcvcolin t1_ixcrztm wrote

OP's submission statement in part:

"Submission Statement:


>Over the next three decades, Latvia, having already shed nearly 30% of its population since 1990, is set to lose 23.5% more.

>One factor behind this dramatic decline is global. Across the industrialised world, fertility rates are plunging: two-thirds of the world’s population now live in countries with a birthrate below the 2.1 births per woman necessary for natural replacement.

>But crucially, like many of the former Soviet states, especially those that joined the EU with its right to work and live across the bloc, Latvia – present population just under 2m – has also suffered successive waves of emigration, as young people leave for more money abroad.

Seems like you can't ignore the possibility of international marriage economies in that net outmigration overview / analysis.


avatarname t1_ixeivk1 wrote

The thing is the outmigration stuff is good few years old, with rising salaries today it is not that much of a concern, especially going forward. Main concern now is that more people die than are born.


pcvcolin t1_ixggupm wrote

Latvia - Historical Population Growth Rate

Year Pop. Growth Rate Growth Rate

2022 1,850,651 -1.24%

2021 1,873,919 -1.22%

2020 1,897,052 -1.02%

2019 1,916,555 -0.99%

2018 1,935,630 -0.98%

2017 1,954,862 -0.94%

2016 1,973,476 -0.93%

2015 1,991,955 -0.95%

The current net migration rate for Latvia in 2022 is -5.002 per 1000 population, a 11.64% decline from 2021.

The net migration rate for Latvia in 2021 was -5.661 per 1000 population, a 10.44% decline from 2020.

The net migration rate for Latvia in 2020 was -6.321 per 1000 population, a 9.44% decline from 2019.

The net migration rate for Latvia in 2019 was -6.980 per 1000 population, a 8.64% decline from 2018.



avatarname t1_ixhi8vw wrote

Where are these numbers from?

Official statistics of Latvia show 1,895,400 people living in Latvia on Oct 1, 2022. Even if we discount 36 thousand Ukrainian refugees which are included in this number, we have a bit less than 1,859,000 something.


avatarname t1_ixeijir wrote

This was more of a case in the 90s, nowadays Latvia is more economically developed for this to be a huge concern. Even the population decrease at the moment is more due to the fact that way less people are born than die, not due to emigration of Latvians, as approx the same number of people arrive in Latvia as leave it. With Ukrainian refugees there has even been population increase this year so all these estimates may also change if there is more instability in the region in Russian speaking countries and we have more relaxed immigration policy (it has also been rather strict compared to say Poland, since we already have a big Russian speaking minority, like you cannot employ a Ukrainian or Belorussian or anyone for minimum wage in Latvia, you can only pay them above average wage and only if a Latvian is not applying for the same job, of course there are ways how to avoid this, usually they employ a dude in Poland or Lithuania where it is way more relaxed and then send them here as a contractor or sth like that, but it is more tricky)

Latvians can go to USA visa free without any engagement, well at least to travel. But if people leave Latvia for work, it is today mainly to other EU countries, no need to travel so far away from home for better salaries and also no need for work permits or green card. Also Norway, due to high salaries, and still UK, although maybe rules are more tight now.


Beli_Mawrr t1_ix9nma6 wrote

If you're a Latvian, Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, American, etc country looking to improve your demographic odds, here're a few good strategies:

  • make sure daycare is affordable and plentiful. Offer stipends to help pay for it. Lower the barriers to entry for daycare companies.

  • alternatively, make motherhood more attractive by offering equivalent stipends to families or indeed mothers who aren't working.

  • make housing affordable by building more of it and discouraging low density uses such as single family homes

  • national campaigns to make raising a family a patriotic duty. Offer tax benefits, scholarships, etc to people raising families.

These demographic changes are reversible!


DividedContinuity t1_ixa8rjv wrote

Sounds like socialism. How is private equity supposed to profit off that?



Beli_Mawrr t1_ixa92pb wrote

ya know what's ironic is these population crunches actually are really good for the working class. That's something that's not talked about very much because it's an awkward subject.


VoraciousTrees t1_ixaah1s wrote

I mean, it's that or see society destabilize and collapse as the rich non- workers have to cope with not having a working class providing them services.


MrBIMC t1_ixakh9m wrote

I guess the rich hedge their bets on full automatization to ensure continuation of civilization.

We increasingly rolling into post-scarcity society, the only issue is that most of economic benefits are increasingly funneled towards the top, which makes life unaffordable for the most of society.

World economy and welfare needs a rebalance(as in UBI to provide surviveable baseline for a happy consumer), but I do not see it happening before things get really ugly with 30%+ unemployed.


YWAK98alum t1_ixcu17h wrote

Private equity can profit handsomely from owning daycares that have a steady stream of government contracts for a vital public function.

It has less opportunity to privatize stay-at-home parenting, though. At least as of now, you can't buy equity or options in a family.


gingerisla t1_ixal07a wrote

Fuck that, it shouldn't be anyone's "duty" to raise kids. Can't think of a worse reason to have children. Look at Ceaușescu's Romania or Nazi Germany where they made having kids a patriotic duty and see what happened.


Beli_Mawrr t1_ixalcri wrote

Yeah, when I was writing this, I was thinking to the USSR, who even so far as gave an award to mothers (which to me seems a little bit weird but you gotta do what you gotta do). I'm not taking a strong stance on whether or not it should be encouraged, but I am saying that hand wringing about it is probably not going to do anything effective.


alex20_202020 t1_ixba7em wrote

> gave an award to mothers

meaning medals? otherwise many states award mothers with monetary stimulus like retaining salary payment w/out working. and IMO one time payments is not that different.


YWAK98alum t1_ixcurjv wrote

>Can't think of a worse reason to have children.

Then you lack imagination. Unfortunately, there definitely are worse reasons than civic or religious duty to have kids. Having a child because you think that it will save a failing relationship, for example.

The upside of framing it as a civic or religious duty is that it helps build the village around the family. When the rest of the community (political or religious) accepts that raising the next generation is an important obligation, it changes the mindset about helping, and parents can't be islands. Extended social support networks matter. Those communities are more likely to help with something that's a duty than something that's a personal choice (kids as vanity possessions).


SuperGameTheory t1_ixa5sx6 wrote

Yeah but why would we want them to? I don't want more people moving into my area, turning forested land into lawns. Screw that noise. There's too many people. The breeders can calm the f down for a change. We already have 8bil people on Earth.


Beli_Mawrr t1_ixa69c5 wrote

cities don't need to turn forested lands into lawns, they can turn lawns into Paris.

I mean going child free sounds great until you're in the country with the collapsing population. I don't think we've ever experienced that in large scale, but we're about to.


AngryWookiee t1_ixbabnc wrote

That's what immigration Is for, to make up for having no kids. Who cares if new people aren't whatever the native culture was and don't hold the same views? It's racist to want to "preserve" the existing culture. Who cares what skin color, hair, language, or religion the new people are?


Kingalec1 t1_ixd1by2 wrote

It's quite racist to erase the native culture of a country and replace it with another one.


AngryWookiee t1_ixd2riu wrote

Aren't a lot of countries such as the USA based on idea of being a melting pot? How is this any different? how many different types of people are in the USA? Do you think it's racist that white people will be a minority in the USA by 2040? The culture doesn't get completey erased it just changes. It doesn't matter what color somebody's skin, hair, eyes, Are etc.


Kingalec1 t1_ixd3dav wrote

No, it's not racist that white people will become a minority. However, it's quite racist to allow immigrants to replace the dominant culture with an admixed culture across the country due to societal changes. In addition to that, downsizing a culture for just their physical traits is kinda rude.


AngryWookiee t1_ixdatpf wrote

I don't see how that's any diffent then the USA. At one time whites were the majority of people in states, but all cultures and people were allowed, now skin color dosen't matter and whites will be a minority by 2040.

The same thing Is happening In every developed country in the world. They will all become mixed race and their orginal culture and skin color either won't matter or will be adapted by other people.


Beli_Mawrr t1_ixbaydy wrote

I'm of the opinion that almost all culture has value and thus value is lost if the culture is lost. For example, Mexican food is a cultural item - it would suck to lose it!

I also think it's not racist to say that some cultures are better or worse. After all, you essentially can choose your culture. I make no claims about whether immigration would improve Latvian culture, it may well, but that isn't a guarantee. For example, imagine them absorbing a culture with morally offensive values - racism, sexism, phobia of religions, etc. Such things are possible and it would be tragic to see a country's culture adopt those values due to immigration or cultural absorption.

Now to be clear here, I'm not implying that's going to happen, I'm just saying that sometimes culture may be worth preserving as its own merit.


albeitother t1_ixcp55l wrote

this is true but doesn't take into account the cultural shift in which many more young people don't want children than previous generations

It's not the automatic expectation for couples it once was


NYD3030 t1_ixcu8st wrote

I think most of these things are already done in large parts of Europe and have had little effect, birth rates are still very low. The reality is that most young women would rather focus on themselves and their careers than surrender their autonomy for 20+ years to someone else.


neglectedselenium t1_ixd0jtm wrote

Just open the damn borders already. Child stimulating programs have never succeded in history, and that's good. Lax the borders. That'll also decrease poverty


Dr_Edge_ATX t1_ix9x5rx wrote

They should hire Nick Cannon to visit for a few weeks.


MavriKhakiss t1_ix9sf5l wrote

Just import Arabs, North African, and Latinos. Identity problem solved as your native population continue to shrink and your new arrivants fail to be properly integrated.



Test19s t1_ixauzw0 wrote


So now they're being lumped in the same naughty bin as Arabs (whose current problems stem greatly from Islamism)? I don't want to live on a planet where Western-but-poor Latin Americans are seen as a "third world" people.


neglectedselenium t1_ixd0quw wrote

For some reason even Romani people and muslims easily adapt in the US and the New World in general. Just tells you how racist Europeans are actually


MavriKhakiss t1_ixd3n6y wrote

« Racism » isn’t the explanatory variable however.

Thé prime factor of integration is work work work. Canada and US have more dynamic economies than Europeans. And they can chose their immigrants, so they take the best and they can « put them to work, so to speak.

North American culture is more easily accessible too; English in the lingua franca.


Sniffy4 t1_ixab4us wrote

this is actually the real answer. there are plenty of people for whom those abandoned structures and villages would be an upgrade over where they are now.


MavriKhakiss t1_ixaccf7 wrote


But in this scenario, we shouldn't hold any illusion over a thing that Latvians seem to hold in importance: remaining Latvia.


Creepy-Tip-1753 t1_ixagy73 wrote

Is there a particular reason people care about that irrelevant country?


MavriKhakiss t1_ixakb2z wrote

Latvians do.

But the question of their relevance is itself irrelevant. That’s not the point of the article.

How they and others address demographic decline is in itself interesting.


MpVpRb t1_ixa2rse wrote

Endless growth is impossible. Steady-state sustainability is best


Phobophobia94 t1_ixbmq47 wrote

They are in steep decline. Not sure why mentioning endless growth is relevant.


ColumbaPacis t1_ixc67hs wrote

In decline for now.

Human society jumped by billions in a hundred years.

It can stabilize just as fast, or faster.

The issues simply need ti be resolved.

Changing how women and young people in general live their lives is all that is needed. Better pay while people are young, cheaper housing to feel secure, secure work positions.

Of course a woman does not want to have kids when she has to start a career and build it until early thirties.

Of course young couples do not want more kids, when housing is exoensive, as are living expenses.

People in poor countries do not have more kids, people in less educated places have less kids. You start to think "maybe I do not want to have kids if they cannot live like I do".


mossadnik OP t1_ix95xax wrote

Submission Statement:

>By 2050, according to the UN, populations will be in decline in more than half Europe’s 52 countries, including Italy, Spain, Poland and Germany. In five – Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and Ukraine – they are projected to fall by more than 20%.

>Over the next three decades, Latvia, having already shed nearly 30% of its population since 1990, is set to lose 23.5% more.

>One factor behind this dramatic decline is global. Across the industrialised world, fertility rates are plunging: two-thirds of the world’s population now live in countries with a birthrate below the 2.1 births per woman necessary for natural replacement.

>But crucially, like many of the former Soviet states, especially those that joined the EU with its right to work and live across the bloc, Latvia – present population just under 2m – has also suffered successive waves of emigration, as young people leave for more money abroad.


ExLegeLibertas t1_ixa300u wrote

kinda not sad to see national identities fading away. humanity is a common identity that transcends these made-up borders. fewer hierarchies, fewer oligarchies, fewer states.


NYD3030 t1_ixctqte wrote

I would agree with you if national and cultural identities were being replaced with some sort of internationalist, humanistic group identity. But I think instead we're experiencing global atomization where the old collective identities are giving way to hyper-individualism and identity based on personal consumption.


ExLegeLibertas t1_ixdc746 wrote

yeah, it's absolutely true that something more universal needs to be instated, i'm not denying that part. the thing is, it's already right in front of us. there's never going to be something more humane and international than basic human compassion - it already crosses every state line and every artificial division. we simply need to do more of it, and encourage it in others.

the primary prevention of that solidarity is things like state power, nationalist identities, racism, etc.

by breaking those systems, we permit that compassion to resurface.


Comfortable_Dirt t1_ixd21q2 wrote

Yeah great, let's have most ethnicities and their heritages and cultures die down and go extinct until humanity is just a grey and brown blend of nothingness. Fantastic.


ExLegeLibertas t1_ixdcj69 wrote

you can (and we should) preserve and perpetuate everything that's unique and good about any culture without enshrining it with the powers of statehood. nation-states are not the keepers of cultural identities and heritages. if anything, the game of states destroys human diversity with its inevitable wars and mutations into tyranny.


Comfortable_Dirt t1_ixefofx wrote

If you want the Latvian culture to continue into the future you're going to need ethnic Latvians, and a healthy number of them. Do you think it's a coincidence that it's not the Japanese or Nigerians or Mexicans who preserve Latvian culture? Who is supposed to preserve and continue the Latvian heritage and the memory of their history and ancestors but ethnic Latvians themselves?

Your claim is a complete distortion of reality and a complete misunderstanding of why distinct cultures and nationalities exist at all and why wars happen. If there was no tribalism then humanity at this point would be a pathetic shadow of what it is now. Tribalism is what preserves and perpetuates the things you take as just self-evidently existing.


ExLegeLibertas t1_ixei4c9 wrote

lol, lmao

"tribalism keeps cultures going"? really? really?

tell that to the Tutsis. tell it to the Kurds. or, hell, since you brought up the Japanese, tell that to the Ainu.

tribalism is the struggle of tribe against tribe. there's no unity in that theory at all.

if this is the level you're at, i'm not even gonna keep responding, sorry. read any book on cultures surviving through time, and the first thing you'll learn is that states are inevitably the death of endangered cultures, not their salvation.


Comfortable_Dirt t1_ixfb3xj wrote

Sure tribalism has also significantly hurt and destroyed some cultures, but it has helped ridiculously enormously more than it has harmed. That's how literally everything works: It will do some cost and some benefit. The benefit however, has far outweighed the cost.

Show me the thing that has only benefits with no downsides, or the thing with only downsides: It does not exist. You're a complete child if you think it does.

But I don't expect you to understand such nuance, you clearly think it's all black and white and either purely good or purely bad lmao. Not worth my time either, go live in your simple world of simple beliefs and simple evaluations. It's your loss not mine. I see no reason to respond further either, I just home you one day learn that the world is actually complex with costs and benefits to everything, even - shocker - tribalism.


Due_Start_3597 t1_ix9ao0r wrote

Does Latvia do any sort of tax benefit thing?

Tax cuts for people with 2 children? No taxes on single-family homes?

I'm wondering what incentives they've created, some other countries trying to stop population declines do things like that.


Grand-Daoist t1_ixctvj3 wrote

The construction of more* affordable housing, affordable/or free child care, walkable cities and a land value tax could help


Test19s t1_ix9ecm6 wrote

At a certain point, countries will have to choose between sharp decline, mass immigration, or breeding programs that make post-Roe Texas look liberal…and deteriorating relations between nations as well as resource shortages could make immigration politically poisonous.


Mcflymarty447 t1_ixdab0i wrote

Post -Roe Texas is even worse than having a breeding program. At least the people in George Orwell’s 1984 believed in medicine.


3dom t1_ixaekl9 wrote

If societies want to grow then perhaps they should take care of the children from birth to university exams, instead of dumping the whole responsibility onto youngsters who are struggling to pay rent and various loans/debts.


LastInALongChain t1_ixbao8n wrote

This was always going to be a problem in ex-soviet states. As a result of making education so accessible across the board, they crashed their own birthrates.

A countries birthrate is directly associated with the number of years people have to dedicate to training to take part in the jobs the country provides. A woman with a grade 10 education has 4+ kids, a high school educated woman 2.5 and a college educated woman 1.0. Education is directly causal, and years spent in education controls 40% of the variance of number of children born per woman. If you want education, you will have low birthrates. Nothing to do with IQ, its 100% years of education.

Its a terrible fact that good things can generate bad outcomes on the scale of populations. But acting in line with natural law, people could make the decision to force companies to train people without an education for top jobs. Have a track that basically makes different guilds of major professions, so people can get a directed education while working in their intended field and being paid. Doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc. I have a PhD and after having gone through it, I'm certain that the vast majority of people could be trained to do highly specialized, doctoral level work with just workplace education and opportunity. We as a society need to agree on cutting university loans to restrict the number of people who go there early, and make it a place of hyper specialization for people in their 40s.

That way 18 year old's wouldn't have to worry so much about getting trained for 6 years in college, then spending 10 years working their way up a corporate ladder to make use of the education, only to be pretty close to a geriatric pregnancy. Which is why education is directly, causally bad for fertility. Literally all organizations dealing with overpopulation agree with this.


Bothersome_Inductor t1_ixbxvlb wrote

Fertility in latvia pre-1991 fluctuated around 2.0 since 1960. Afterwards it plummeted to 1.1 and slowly recovered to 1.7 in 2016


LastInALongChain t1_ixggu9s wrote

Why not show the full chart:

Clear decline in the 1940-1991 range of latvia in the soviet union even compared to historical trends. Also the 1990 crash was bad because it was a government/economic collapse. the covariates controlling fertility are discussed here:

"“the impetus for parenthood is greatest
among those whose alternative pathways for reducing uncertainty are limited or
blocked” (p. 383). Children are, according to Friedman et al., among the few
“global strategies” available for individuals for reducing a broad range of uncertainties. The two primary alternative strategies are marriage and a stable career. Individuals who have limited possibilities for uncertainty reduction through stable careers are therefore more likely to have children. To support this interpretation,
Friedman et al. cite various studies showing, for instance, a positive relation
between labour market success and childlessness in the U.S. and a negative relation
between employment opportunities in the neighbourhood and contraceptive use
among black teenage Americans."


MonicaB92 t1_ixcsgvi wrote

> I have a PhD and after having gone through it, I'm certain that the vast majority of people could be trained to do highly specialized, doctoral level work with just workplace education and opportunity

do you mean that after PhD, you're doing a technician's job? A PhD should be managing technicians.


LastInALongChain t1_ixgekse wrote

Well A) There are a ton of PhD's that do technician jobs due to degree inflation and B) no, I manage technicians. but also C) I could 100% train a technician to do my job, and research effectively to solve any given problem. Its a thing you can make an algorithm for, most universities just suck at teaching people how to be good at research, and rely on their individual personal inclination towards hard work or creativity to fill in the gaps.

Edit: As long as i'm posting. I've worked with dozens of PhDs in industry, and 80% of them are ineffective at any given task that isn't their technique of specialty. Uniformly they are all terrible at management of workflows.


MonicaB92 t1_ixgysqo wrote

A) you will find Figure 1 in relevant.

Average IQ of 108.3 (95% CI 106.9-109.7) for the 442 individuals with a graduate or professional degree.


LastInALongChain t1_ixhrp6i wrote

I don't understand the point you're trying to make?

I agree completely, personality factors makes a way bigger impact than IQ in most situations. My concern is that PhD's are just poorly trained over 6 years, and the same outcome could be done faster, more effectively in 2 years. Most schools just have terrible methodology, and rely on personality traits to make up the difference in outcome, while letting people without the right composition of personality drop out. If anything this supports my point.

To clarify, I'm strongly anti college, anti 10 years of education that is mostly forgotten or useless. Not making an argument about intelligence. Higher education is just a parasite on society at this point.


MonicaB92 t1_ixi4zdi wrote

>the point you're trying to make?

you had mentioned "degree inflation" and I have quantified this with quite a new (2021) reasearch. Before seeing that, and NLSY97 based research, I have imagined graduate degrees to be more selective.


LastInALongChain t1_ixi6sgq wrote

Grad studies are selective, they just select based on conscientiousness. Look up big 5 personality, its the gold standard for personality research and life outcome prediction. Conscientiousness controls the degree people are willing to work. A person with a score reaching the extremes of conscientiousness in the population will just work 16 hours a day and sleep 8 hours so they can get right back to working. Conscientiousness is the biggest predictor of academic and workplace success. IQ is good, but it doesn't surprise me that its not the be all end all.

In my experience you can boil doctoral students that succeed to be one of: hard working, anxious, or successfully creative.

Degree inflation is just a different thing altogether though. Its schools jamming people through higher studies for more money, while reducing the level of training and oversight. Which leads to people who can't answer the question "How would you go about researching a completely new topic/field you have no experience in, to solve a particular question/reach a particular goal?"

I've asked that question to dozens of professors, and only like 3-4 had a good answer with a philosophy and methodology.


neglectedselenium t1_ixd12yu wrote

Empowering women is great, actually.


LastInALongChain t1_ixgez5k wrote

Empowerment is fine, education is clearly crashing the birthrate. I don't hate women, I'm just explaining the actual, known factors that control the problem.

Too many people in these threads have a terrible understanding of reality, They all go "duh, things are bad so just add more good stuff like money and time and houses and we would have kids". Completely ignoring the reality that good things, like education and egalitarianism, can have bad long term effects if done sloppily and without awareness. Everybody just uses these threads to demand more free stuff for themselves, which is just gross and transparent and indicates they haven't done any research at all.


neglectedselenium t1_ixghmup wrote

The only working solutions are to ease immigration for college educated people and start handing out working visas and allow anyone to serve in the US military, I guess


LastInALongChain t1_ixgj1tl wrote

Or just repurpose college and high school. Increase the quality of education, and reduce the timeline to have everybody graduate at 16. Then just have a significant job training and placement program. Have college be a place for research and hyper-niche specialization, with an accelerated timeline of 2 years for any specific program. Avoid situations where people have spend 4 bachelors, 2 masters, 4 PhD years to get a job making powerpoints at 28.


ghostdeinithegreat t1_ixbndhw wrote

I wonder what Latverian Doctor Viktor Von Doom would think of this article.


the__truthguy t1_ixd01fq wrote

Just hang in there a bit longer. We are only at the beginning of the demographic cliff we approach. Once the machine really starts running low on workers, they'll actually have to pay people a living wage and the birth rate will recover.


patrykpudlo t1_ixeoo94 wrote

I would not worry too much, if Latvia’s decline in population seems worrisome look at China or Russia! Pretty much the whole world is shrinking in terms of population ( even though we just reached 8 billion) the prognosis for next decades are pretty pretty bad for majority maybe except African countries. It’s not as much of a problem with general population size but the problem with the structure of population. At some point in not so distant future the core of every nation will be old people, who will care for them? Produce food? Maintain existing structures etc? it will be hard..


FuturologyBot t1_ix9a5om wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/mossadnik:

Submission Statement:

>By 2050, according to the UN, populations will be in decline in more than half Europe’s 52 countries, including Italy, Spain, Poland and Germany. In five – Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and Ukraine – they are projected to fall by more than 20%.

>Over the next three decades, Latvia, having already shed nearly 30% of its population since 1990, is set to lose 23.5% more.

>One factor behind this dramatic decline is global. Across the industrialised world, fertility rates are plunging: two-thirds of the world’s population now live in countries with a birthrate below the 2.1 births per woman necessary for natural replacement.

>But crucially, like many of the former Soviet states, especially those that joined the EU with its right to work and live across the bloc, Latvia – present population just under 2m – has also suffered successive waves of emigration, as young people leave for more money abroad.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


theflush1980 t1_ixbthrx wrote

We really need to find a solution for the problem that we need an ever growing population for a flourishing economy. There are 8 billion people on the planet now. We grew from 1.6 billion in just the last 120 years.

With the state of the planet right now we have to get inventive. We somehow need to stop an ever increasing world population, we seem to be getting there. Next up is a way to get our ecological footprints smaller, way smaller. Especially in the 1st world countries.


Specific_Main3824 t1_ixcfiad wrote

Just top it up with Indians and Chinese. That's what Australia has done, I forget what country I'm in most days.


BabylonByBoobies t1_ixcnh1g wrote

Oh well?

Nations rise, nations fall, humanity lives on. So far, at least.


albeitother t1_ixcojb8 wrote

Indigenous British are also a declining demographic with a massive majority of births in the UK now being from mothers who are from another country

Makes me sad as a Brit that my grandchildren will most likely be a minority

also as the title says it won't be Britain without the British so which country/culture will they be living in?


MonicaB92 t1_ixcsyma wrote

the UK will be similar to America, which was/is multi-ethnic, except for the NHS and gun restrictions are here to stay.


albeitother t1_ixd8ymf wrote

those things are British values

the government will be entirely second or third genration immigrant reflecting the elctorate


which is exactly what I mean
It won't be Britain after the British have been bred out
things we take for granted and look like they will always be here will have gone in my gandchildren's time


Palimon t1_ixcud28 wrote

That's a lot of eastern European countries.

Croatia has lost like 10% of it's pop since 2011, and that number is very likely bigger because a lot of people don't declare they moved abroad for work.


slickhedstrong t1_ixd97wi wrote

but theyre getting more affluent by not having kids, right? right?


Storyteller-Hero t1_ixdl3ar wrote

South Korea and Japan are going through similar issues, with worries of what happens when a certain percentage of the population is in their golden years without enough young people to take over roles in the country and whatnot.


slt66 t1_ixdry7v wrote

This is a world wide long term issue and one underlying reason socialism or welfare capitalism is unsustainable.


iNstein t1_ixac9ps wrote

Fuck! No seriously, fuck. That is literally how you fix the problem. Everything else is just whinging. Get yer pants down and get on with repopulating. This is socialogy, not Futurology...


22Starter22 t1_ixc4ze9 wrote

I myself have been envisioning a world with about 1 billion in the future. But how do we get there, I'll leave that thought up to you... I know how I would do it


LupeDyCazari t1_ixaxwm0 wrote

Yes, and?

Countries are born and die all the time. The Countries that exist today, many of them didn't exist hundreds of years ago, and every nation alive today is very likely to die off eventually.

What's with the nationalism, that ain't cute.

''We won't be Lativia'' ?

So what?

Another Country will be born to replace Lativia.

Good grief, now people have to start making babies so Lativia doesn't die?

Bit of a strech,no?


albeitother t1_ixcpk44 wrote

national identity is a reality, tribal belonging is a human need even on a national level

cultural differences defined by nationhood over centuries is what makes the world more enriched and increases that sense of pride and belonging

when a nation dies everything people have built on for centuries goes with it


AngryWookiee t1_ixa1uln wrote

This happening all over the world. Even in the USA white people will be a minority by 2040. You can say I am racist for pointing this out if you want. You can't deny that a significant majority of America's history is made up up of white people. I just hope that whoever runs the USA keeps true to its ideals.


DividedContinuity t1_ixa92s9 wrote

Who cares what colour someone's hair, eyes, or skin is? People are people.


say-whaaaaaaaaaaaaat t1_ixad3os wrote

And what ideals are those?


[deleted] t1_ixag8nq wrote



silvses t1_ixc9xuy wrote

Majority of white US come from Christian background, they still have random episodes of Christian extremists vouching for some theocracy but so far It didn't turn to Gilead yet. Whats the difference?


AngryWookiee t1_ixaqra9 wrote

Democracy, equality, freedom, liberty, justice, and opportunity to make a better life.


say-whaaaaaaaaaaaaat t1_ixariwn wrote

Didn’t white Americans deny most of these ideals to non-whites for most of the nation’s history?


AngryWookiee t1_ixav2zu wrote

Yes they did, but you are forgetting that Americans also fought to change those things and were successful. Non land owners can now vote, women can vote now, black people are no longer slaves, women no longer are confided to the kitchen. It was was a long hard fight for those things for sure, but it just goes to prove that America is capable of change. There is reason people literally risk their lives to come to the USA and other European counties every year.


say-whaaaaaaaaaaaaat t1_ixavy2h wrote

Totally correct. Progressive ideals planted in the gilded age bore fruit for many repressed and under represented Americans.

What I don’t understand how you think there’s something uniquely white about social advancement, given how hard many white people fought against such change?

Do you consider America to be a white nation?


AngryWookiee t1_ixb3x49 wrote

First of all I should clarify that I am not an American, I was pointing out that soon white people in the USA would also be a minority.

I do not consider America a white country but it was founded by white people from England, I am not sure how we can pretend otherwise. The constitution and the laws that exist today were also made by those very same founders.

I don't know how we can pretend that those very laws/rights that fought for minority's to vote, etc. did not have the support of the population, which unfortunately is/was white. How many white people marched in black lives matter? How many white people were okay with the civil war to free the slaves? Do you think it would have happened if the majority of population didn't support it? Do you think women and minorities voting would have ever happened if majority of population didn't support it?

Its unfortunate that America was founded by white people, but it was. The constitution was unfortunately written by white people too. Minority's and women were treated badly in American history (although not unique to America). The thing is that American as whole came together and changed those things. If the people that control America in the future don't uphold the ideals of the constitution and laws that came before then it was all for nothing.

I don't know why you don't believe that the people coming to the US in future may not uphold the same laws and ideals that Americans do today. Look at how poorly integration is going Europe, which is the primary reason that European politics if moving to the right. What happens when somebody with those extreme views gets political power?


Comfortable_Dirt t1_ixd38q9 wrote

Why is it unfortunate America was founded by White people? What the fuck?


AngryWookiee t1_ixdl4ee wrote

Because the guy I was responding to said "white Americans deny most of these ideals to non-whites for most of the nation’s history". It's white guilt I guess.


EntranceAltruistic25 t1_ixc19ps wrote

White people aren't suddenly disappearing, they just aren't a majority any longer (perhaps because people of hispanic and/or mixed ethnicity aren't counted as white?)

They will remain a sizeable fraction of the population for the foreseeable future, if not forever, just like most other ethnicities in the US. I don't expect white Americans becoming 30-40% of the population instead of 50% makes much of a difference.

Another thing to keep in mind: there is no single group that runs the USA even today. The voter base is comprised of American citizens, a large fraction of whom aren't white. Simply think back to how often you've heard about the "black vote" being key to winning one state or another, and consider that every demographic may tend to vote for certain policies over others.

I honestly think that in the future, ethnic identity will play way less of a role in the political landscape of the US, which I can only see as a good thing, bringing about a more equitable environment for all Americans.


ale_93113 t1_ix9rsbn wrote

latvia has a problem, and that is that it is not attractive to inmigration, if it were, then the problem would be solved


i mean i understand not wanting russians for obvious reasons, but i am sure that adding a 30-50% of the populaton with african and middle eastren inmigrants over the decades would do eonders, and no chance of invasion


eastern europeans need to think long term and repopulate themselves with people from other nations while teacing the local culture, that way, theyll prosper despite global declining birthrates


OhDalinar t1_ix9l5t5 wrote

Wow. Are we really going to just sweep the obvious racist dog whistle under the rug?

Latvia for Latvians?

This is how genocides start


[deleted] t1_ix9qjgl wrote



AngryWookiee t1_ixbbr91 wrote

Imagine going to the USA and there is no white people and English is gone. Is it still USA? Of course it is. Talk about being racist. Somehow you were up voted.


Test19s t1_ixatecm wrote

If the language stays, I don't mind. And it's ridiculous that East Asians would disappear; worst case they reflect their global share of the population.


NTIASAAHMLGTTUD t1_ixb5kp4 wrote

Just playing devil's advocate, what if the language also went? And most of the culture, however one defines that.


ale_93113 t1_ix9ret6 wrote

inmigrants do learn the language


that is the whole point, to make so that people that inmigrate learn the language, after that you have sucessfully increased your population, just repeat


[deleted] t1_ix9s1qn wrote



ale_93113 t1_ix9t5fx wrote

oh so you are in favor of xenophobia???... well i dont have much to discuss with you


[deleted] t1_ix9v659 wrote



ale_93113 t1_ix9x1dx wrote

I am Spanish a country with a similar situation, although literally every developed country is in the same spot

I hope we will reach the 2000s immigration boom again, it was a wonderful time for our economy, we went from 2% to 15% migrant population in 10 years, and I can assure you, paella is still here! We are just enjoying it with a few more friends


[deleted] t1_ixa88u5 wrote



ale_93113 t1_ixbvpae wrote

My views are not majority in either Spain or Italy because 90+% of the global population is racist, and this fact doesn't seem to change much with where you are from, you are probably racist too alleging to the comment you wrote earlier about Japan...