Categories
Antiwork

population & wages & economic cycles

“Back in the 1950s, entry-level young males in the US were able to achieve incomes equal to their fathers’ current income. This was because of that age group’s reduced relative size as a result of the low birth rates in the 1930s. But by 1985 – about the time the peak of the baby boom had entered the labor force – that relative income had fallen to 0.3; in other words, entry-level men were earning less than one-third of what their fathers made. In developing countries, these relative cohort size effects – the reduction in young males’ relative income and increase in their unemployment rate – are multiplied by the impact of increasing modern development, especially the rising level of women’s education. In addition, the large influx of baby boomers into the labor market in the US forced many older workers, who would otherwise be working in “bridge jobs” prior…


“Back in the 1950s, entry-level young males in the US were able to achieve incomes equal to their fathers’ current income. This was because of that age group’s reduced relative size as a result of the low birth rates in the 1930s. But by 1985 – about the time the peak of the baby boom had entered the labor force – that relative income had fallen to 0.3; in other words, entry-level men were earning less than one-third of what their fathers made.

In developing countries, these relative cohort size effects – the reduction in young males’ relative income and increase in their unemployment rate – are multiplied by the impact of increasing modern development, especially the rising level of women’s education.

In addition, the large influx of baby boomers into the labor market in the US forced many older workers, who would otherwise be working in “bridge jobs” prior to retirement, into earlier retirement. This explains how the average age of retirement for men and women went down in the 1980s.

This decline in income relative to their parents and their own material aspirations has a host of repercussions on family life. It leads to reduced or delayed marriage, lower fertility rates and increased female labor force participation rates as young people struggle to respond to their worsened prospects. “

https://theconversation.com/baby-booms-and-busts-how-population-growth-spurts-affect-the-economy-46056

There's an interesting tidbit about how cohort size corresponds to recession in the USA.

One thing the author missed was the reality that global population increased from about 1 billion to almost 9 billion from 1900 to today.
Immigration has relatively mild impact to the local population in terms of competition. But the real hit to wages is that companies are able to exploit people on global scales, so local baby boom/bust isn't the only factor.

I'm really curious why “sex strike” or baby strike hasn't been really utilized until we get paid maternity and paternity leave with low cost, high quality childcare.
Or is that the underlying fear to overturn Roe v Wade? That there's not gonna be enough wage slaves?
The earth is already struggling with just us. It's gonna be an accelerated disaster as population increased further.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.