Falling birth rates have become a defining political battleground across the West, with conservative leaders warning of demographic decline and urging families to have more children. But as populations age and workforce shortages deepen, a difficult question is moving to the centre of the debate: can declining birth rates be offset without immigration?

The answer may shape economies, public services and political discourse for decades.

A Demographic Squeeze Tightens

From the United States to Europe, fertility rates have fallen well below replacement levels. In England and Wales, birth rates have dropped to their lowest level in decades, while deaths are beginning to outpace births in some years.

The consequences are already visible. Schools face shrinking enrolment, workforces are ageing, and governments are confronting rising pension and healthcare costs with fewer taxpayers available to support them.

The Right Pushes for a Baby Boom

Conservative figures including JD Vance, Elon Musk, Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orbán have framed declining birth rates as a civilisational threat.

Their solutions often centre on tax incentives, family support measures and policies designed to encourage larger families. The goal is straightforward: reverse demographic decline through higher domestic birth rates rather than increased migration.

Economic Reality Refuses to Cooperate

The challenge is that many of the forces suppressing birth rates are deeply economic. Housing costs, expensive childcare, insecure employment and uncertainty about the future continue to weigh on family decisions.

Evidence from multiple countries suggests financial incentives alone rarely produce sustained increases in fertility. Governments can influence decisions at the margins, but reversing long-term demographic trends has proved far more difficult.

Immigration Moves From Political Flashpoint to Economic Necessity

As populations age, demand for workers in healthcare, social care and other essential sectors continues to grow. Many economists argue that immigration provides the fastest way to offset workforce shortages while longer-term demographic solutions are pursued.

That creates a growing tension at the heart of right-wing politics. Leaders who promise sharp reductions in migration must also explain how ageing societies will fund pensions, staff hospitals and sustain economic growth.

A Debate No Longer About the Future

What was once a discussion about distant demographic trends is becoming an immediate policy challenge. Birth rates are falling now. Populations are ageing now. Labour shortages are emerging now.

The political argument may focus on culture and identity, but the underlying pressure is increasingly practical: who will work, who will care for the elderly, and how societies adapt when there are fewer young people to carry the load.

The right is desperate for a solution to falling birth rates. Who’s going to tell them that the answer is immigration?

I personally am ready to help the UK, Ill head down to Khao San

I just don't know why falling birthrates are causing a panic, in my opinion it's the best thing to happen to this planet in centuries. We can barely sustain our current population and the quality of life is dropping dramatically for billions of people.

Many say AI is the answer but I think it's going to move mankind backwards dramatically. Falling GDP is really not a big deal as it's a very overrated metric. AI will end up eliminating a lot of jobs anyway, so we would likely end up with very significant unemployment. In reality the last thing in the world this planet needs is more babies at this time.

Not to mention barely any fish left in the seas, denuded forests, and countless other environmental issues caused by 8 billion people on the planet without much sensitivity to nature, and truly ridiculous climate deniers like Donald Trump, who is amongst a huge group of ignoramus fools who have likely never even been to a national park, and dislike nature and all of its glories.

Edited May 31May 31 by spidermike007

Some very common sense information about why birth rates are declining. Add to that ridiculous levels of inflation around the world, and a much higher cost of living and the incredible expense of raising a child, and you have a perfect storm for GDP growth and population growth.

“Plunging infant mortality rates meant that more children survived to adulthood, reducing the incentive to have the largest family possible. The shifts from an agrarian to an industrial and then to an information economy made children less valuable as extra household laborers and made an intense educational investment in each child make far more economic sense—which in turn raised the costs of childrearing for the ambitious and successful. The birth control pill made accidental pregnancy less likely and delayed parenting more plausible. The feminist revolution created strong economic incentives for women to delay childbirth as long as possible. The divorce revolution and the decline of marriage meant that fewer people than in the past were spending the childbearing years in a stable, monogamous partnership. Secularization meant that fewer people felt a moral obligation to be fruitful and multiply. The welfare state provided an old-age guarantee that lessened the need for kids as sources of financial support when you yourself cannot work any longer.

And the blessings of a rich consumer society provided a plethora of goods, services, and experiences that an under-forty-five-year-old might wish to spend time and energy and money consuming—even as the day-after-day, hour-after-hour burdens of childrearing remained substantial, mitigated modestly (at best) by technological progress and alleged labor-saving devices.”

Excerpt From

The Decadent Society

Ross Douthat

Edited May 31May 31 by spidermike007

s

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I just don't know why falling birthrates are causing a panic, in my opinion it's the best thing to happen to this planet in centuries. We can barely sustain our current population and the quality of life is dropping dramatically for billions of people.

Many say AI is the answer but I think it's going to move mankind backwards dramatically. Following GDP is really not a big deal as it's a very overrated metric. AI will end up eliminating a lot of jobs anyway, so we would likely end up with very significant unemployment.

Not to mention barely any fish left in the seas, denuded forests, and countless other environmental issues caused by 8 billion people on the planet without much sensitivity to nature, and truly ridiculous climate deniers like Donald Trump, who is amongst a huge group of ignoramus fools who have likely never been to a national park.

sm007, I truly hope Donald doesn't read your final words above. If he does I can see it now:

Saguaro National Park, Arizona

Sequoia National Park, California

Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota

Virgin Islands National Park, Virgin Islands

Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota

Donald Trump National Parks, Florida, New York, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,etc.

White Sands National Park, New Mexico

Edited May 31May 31 by bannork

I think the answer is no to the immigration question, industrial countries like the US and even nations like Thailand desperately need immigrants to do the work that the locals have no interest in doing.

One of my subcontractors that I work with told me that he's having a very hard time finding people to do very easy labor for $300 to $350 a day cash. You know an economy is upside down when you have a situation like that, something has to change, and denying immigration is not the answer, because Americans simply don't want to do so many jobs that immigrants are willing to do.

Edited May 31May 31 by spidermike007

10 minutes ago, bannork said:

s

sm007, I truly hope Donald doesn't read your final words above. If he does I can see it now:

Saguaro National Park, Arizona

Sequoia National Park, California

Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota

Virgin Islands National Park, Virgin Islands

Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota

Donald Trump National Parks, Florida, New York, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,etc.

White Sands National Park, New Mexico

There's absolutely no chance of that street trash imbecile reading my post since he doesn't read. My guess is that he's not quite illiterate but he just doesn't care to learn anything so why read? The way he sees it more than likely is why learn anything when you're already know everything?

44 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Plunging infant mortality rates meant that more children survived to adulthood, reducing the incentive to have the largest family possible.

But RFK Jr and the rest of the idiots are killing vaccines that will solve that problem. More dead children from preventable disease and people will have to have more. And think of all the money generated for the billionaire class treating their illnesses before they die. Win-win. And the funeral costs. Wow. It's a gold mine.

Always wondered why birth control is never

mentioned as a easy solution to climate change?

Better than wasting trillions on something

that might never work?

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I think the answer is no to the immigration question, industrial countries like the US and even nations like Thailand desperately need immigrants to do the work that the locals have no interest in doing.

One of my subcontractors that I work with told me that he's having a very hard time finding people to do very easy labor for $300 to $350 a day cash. You know an economy is upside down when you have a situation like that, something has to change, and denying immigration is not the answer, because Americans simply don't want to do so many jobs that immigrants are willing to do.

Have you ever employed Islamic staff?

53 minutes ago, gargamon said:

But RFK Jr and the rest of the idiots are killing vaccines that will solve that problem.

What vaccines are being killed, how and why?

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I just don't know why falling birthrates are causing a panic, in my opinion it's the best thing to happen to this planet in centuries. We can barely sustain our current population and the quality of life is dropping dramatically for billions of people.

Many say AI is the answer but I think it's going to move mankind backwards dramatically. Falling GDP is really not a big deal as it's a very overrated metric. AI will end up eliminating a lot of jobs anyway, so we would likely end up with very significant unemployment. In reality the last thing in the world this planet needs is more babies at this time.

Not to mention barely any fish left in the seas, denuded forests, and countless other environmental issues caused by 8 billion people on the planet without much sensitivity to nature, and truly ridiculous climate deniers like Donald Trump, who is amongst a huge group of ignoramus fools who have likely never even been to a national park, and dislike nature and all of its glories.

Declining birth rates are not well aligned with Western social programs.

7 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

What vaccines are being killed, how and why?

Typical MAGA response.

When i was born 1953 the world population was only 2.5 billion, and everything ran fine. We can lose 5.5 billion easy.

53 minutes ago, henryford1958 said:

We can lose 5.5 billion easy.

Are you volunteering to start the ball rolling ?

Recently, I was reading about the "condo" problem here in Thailand.

They claimed that there are 25% more deaths in Thailand than births.

There are 400,000 empty housing units.

70% of bank loans for low-end condos that middle-class Thais can afford are refused due to poor workmanship.

High-end condos stand half-empty due to the 51% that must be sold to Thais who can't afford them.

I know this is not just a problem about a declining population, but it is a factor on the local level.

The main issue with a declining birth rate (certainly in the west) is little to do with wanting more people on the planet and everything to do with trying to fund an ageing population. From AI -

'Over the past 50 years, global life expectancy at birth has steadily risen from roughly 60 years in the 1970s to over 73 years globally today. This modern extension of human life represents a historical milestone driven by advancements in medicine, nutrition, and cardiovascular treatments'

That is a huge leap and if like many western nations are, you are financing pensions or old folks homes or medical treatment, that is a huge and unsustainable strain on the national expenditure. Many countries are looking to increase the pension age, with the UK looking at increases to reach 67 by 2028, with long-term projections suggesting it could rise to 68 or 69 by 2046. Denmark, passed a law to automatically tie the retirement age to life expectancy, reaching 70 by 2040 and potentially scaling up to 74 by 2060. The Netherlands wants 70 to 71 by 2060. Italy & Sweden are looking to do the same. They are just a few of the many countries doing the same.

I think the answer is no to the immigration question, industrial countries like the US and even nations like Thailand desperately need immigrants to do the work that the locals have no interest in doing.

Maybe so, but the USA can have the pick of the crop. So could the UK, and Germany and.. and...

Instead, the Dems (and lefties) threw open the border to everyone and their dog that was almost guaranteed to end up swelling the dole. In other words, future Dem (and lefty) voters...

Edited June 1Jun 1 by impulse

3 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Always wondered why birth control is never

mentioned as a easy solution to climate change?

Better than wasting trillions on something

that might never work?

I read recently that 21 of the nations in the world with the highest birth rates were in Africa, and nearly all of them are Muslim. That's where you start to address the problem of overpopulation, somehow.

29 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

The main issue with a declining birth rate (certainly in the west) is little to do with wanting more people on the planet and everything to do with trying to fund an ageing population. From AI -

'Over the past 50 years, global life expectancy at birth has steadily risen from roughly 60 years in the 1970s to over 73 years globally today. This modern extension of human life represents a historical milestone driven by advancements in medicine, nutrition, and cardiovascular treatments'

That is a huge leap and if like many western nations are, you are financing pensions or old folks homes or medical treatment, that is a huge and unsustainable strain on the national expenditure. Many countries are looking to increase the pension age, with the UK looking at increases to reach 67 by 2028, with long-term projections suggesting it could rise to 68 or 69 by 2046. Denmark, passed a law to automatically tie the retirement age to life expectancy, reaching 70 by 2040 and potentially scaling up to 74 by 2060. The Netherlands wants 70 to 71 by 2060. Italy & Sweden are looking to do the same. They are just a few of the many countries doing the same.

Who cares about what AI has to say? All AI is doing at this point is causing the world's intelligence to drop.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Have you ever employed Islamic staff?

Islamic staff?

What the a walking stick that is purported to have been used by Mohammed?

3 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Always wondered why birth control is never

mentioned as a easy solution to climate change?

Better than wasting trillions on something

that might never work?

You might want to take a look at which populations create the most per capita environmental impacts.

Are you volunteering to start the ball rolling ?

Always remember, you're the carbon they want to eliminate.

25 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

25 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Who cares about what AI has to say? All AI is doing at this point is causing the world's intelligence to drop.

I'm not really sure what your point is here - this post is not about AI.

If you are disputing the facts presented with regard to countries increasing their pension age then you are more than welcome to refute with your own stats and figures. Until then perhaps stay on topic.

On another note to the moderators - when you hit 'quote' the original quote is often coming up twice. I've noticed this with other posters as well. Glitch in the matrix?

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the risk weighted cost of raising a profoundly autistic kid?

When I was a kid, I didn't even know what that was. Probably because the odds were about 1 in 1500. Nowadays, in some areas of the USA, those odds are more like 1 in 25. What's 1/25 of a buttload of healthcare and special needs money? That sounds like a big risk to family finances. A lot more than the 1/1500 odds I was born into.

Maybe it's completely unrelated to overprocessed food and/or the ever expanding vaccine schedule, but I'd sure like to know what's causing it.

Edited June 1Jun 1 by impulse

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

...................but I'd sure like to know what's causing it.

Better detection from medical professionals. Amazingly enough, science and detection of disease, conditions and the diagnosis of such conditions has improved quite a lot since you were a kid.

Simple as that.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Maybe so, but the USA can have the pick of the crop. So could the UK, and Germany and.. and...

Instead, the Dems (and lefties) threw open the border to everyone and their dog that was almost guaranteed to end up swelling the dole. In other words, future Dem (and lefty) voters...

Of course you must have data to back up your assertions. The border was open and everybody who came was on the dole, right?

I was under the obviously mistaken impression migrants tended to work, and in such jobs as farm workers, abattoir staff, gardening/landscaping, and in service industries like hotel room cleaning. I recall that up until 2017, even Donald Trump employed undocumented workers in Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. It seems he felt those so-called open borders were good for his business.

Western nations are importing millions of leaches every year

One guy gets a dodgy student visa and his whole clan of 20 are allowed to come and claim benefits. No benefit just a drain on the financial purse...and not too mention policing and custodial services. All these foreigners, protesting and looting, just look at Paris the other day... Black and white don't mix, they should not be allowed into most countries. And as for Indians, they don't pay tax, they only hire other indians...Europe should be totally white and Africa black...the only way we can all live safe and peacefully

The birth decline is even more severe in much of Asia.

For 2024, Thailand came in at 1.2

Japan 1.15

China 1.01

And then it gets ugly:

Singapore .97

Hong Kong .84

South Korea .75

Macau .58

The problem with declining birth rates - while in some ways complex - is mainly women of child-bearing years delaying pregnancy or forgoing it altogether (delaying can make it harder to conceive in later years). While it's easy to say 'good, we have too many people already', the fact is that countries where this is happening in a big way (Japan, Korea) will not have younger workers to pay the social security of the rapidly growing senior generation. It also means fewer professionals, like doctors, lawyers and a standing army to defend the country. Innovation will be harder to achieve with fewer university grads, etc. and eventually the country's negative birthrate and shrinking population will lead it to global irrelevance. Investment dries up and the country goes into a steep depression.