September 06, 2013
A NYT article applauded reports that the birth rate stabilized in 2012 after declining sharply in the years from 2007 to 2011. While it is clearly good news insofar as birth rates are a measure of the economic security of young families, there is no reason that the rest of us should want to see more children.
The piece tells readers that higher birth rates are associated with higher economic growth. This is true, but they are not necessarily associated with higher per capita growth. Bangladesh has a higher GDP (on a PPP basis) than Denmark, but no one would say that Bangladesh is richer than Denmark. This is because Denmark has a far higher per capita GDP.
There are also many items related to population density that are not captured by GDP. For example, if people spend more time commuting because roads and infrastructure are more crowded this will not be picked by in GDP. The same is true for recreational sites like parks and beaches. Also, a larger population will make it more difficult to attain targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for folks who care about things like global warming.
One final point that is worth noting, the piece effectively confuses levels and changes. The fact that the decline has stopped at its 2011 level implies that families in 2012 were as pessimistic as at any point in the downturn. Insofar as we can see the birthrate as a measure of economic security, that is not a good story.
Comments