Population, Resources, and Wealth

Thoughts on demographic collapse and the economy

The global population has been rising rapidly for the past two centuries when compared to historical trends. Fifty years ago, that trend seemed set to continue, and there was a lot of concern around the issue of overpopulation. But if you haven’t been living under a rock, you’ll know that while the population is still rising, that trend now seems set to reverse this century, and there’s every indication population could decline precipitously over the next two centuries.

Demographics is a field where predictions about the future are much more reliable than in most scientific fields. That’s because future population trends are “baked in” decades in advance. If you want to know how many fifty-year-olds there will be in forty years, all you have to do is count the ten-year-olds today and allow for mortality rates. That maximum was already determined by the number of births ten years ago, and absolutely nothing can change that now. The average person doesn’t think that through when they look at population trends. You hear a lot of “oh we just need to do more of x to help the declining birthrate” without an acknowledgement that future populations in a given cohort are already fixed by the number of births that already occurred.

As you can see, global birthrates have already declined close to the 2.3 replacement level, with some regions ahead of others, but all on the same trajectory with no region moving against the trend. I’m not going to speculate on the reasons for this, or even whether it’s a good or bad thing. Instead I’m going to make some observations about outcomes this trend could cause economically, and why. Like most macro issues, an individual can’t do anything to change the global landscape personally, but knowing what that landscape might look like is essential to avoiding fallout from trends outside your control.

The Resource Pie

Thomas Malthus popularized the concern about overpopulation with his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population. The basic premise of the book was that population could grow and consume all the available resources, leading to mass poverty, starvation, disease, and population collapse. We can say in hindsight that this was incorrect, given that the global population has increased from less than a billion to over eight billion since then, and the apocalypse Malthus predicted hasn’t materialized. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The global standard of living has risen to levels Malthus couldn’t have imagined, much less predicted.

So where did Malthus go wrong? His hypothesis seems reasonable enough, and we do see a similar trend in certain animal populations. The base assumption Malthus got wrong was to assume resources are a finite, limiting factor to the human population. That at some point certain resources would be totally consumed, and that would be it. He treated it like a pie with a lot of slices, but still a finite number, and assumed that if the population kept rising, eventually every slice would be consumed and there would be no pie left for future generations. That turns out to be completely wrong.

Of course, the earth is finite at some abstract level. The number of atoms could theoretically be counted and quantified. But on a practical level, do humans exhaust the earth’s resources? I’d point to an article from Yale Scientific titled Has the Earth Run out of any Natural Resources? To quote,

However, despite what doomsday predictions may suggest, the Earth has not run out of any resources nor is it likely that it will run out of any in the near future.

In fact, resources are becoming more abundant. Though this may seem puzzling, it does not mean that the actual quantity of resources in the Earth’s crust is increasing but rather that the amount available for our use is constantly growing due to technological innovations. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the only resource we have exhausted is cryolite, a mineral used in pesticides and aluminum processing. However, that is not to say every bit of it has been mined away; rather, producing it synthetically is much more cost efficient than mining the existing reserves at its current value.

As it happens, we don’t run out of resources. Instead, we become better at finding, extracting, and efficiently utilizing resources, which means that in practical terms resources become more abundant, not less. In other words, the pie grows faster than we can eat it.

So is there any resource that actually limits human potential? I think there is, and history would suggest that resource is human ingenuity and effort. The more people are thinking about and working on a problem, the more solutions we find and build to solve it. That means not only does the pie grow faster than we can eat it, but the more people there are, the faster the pie grows. Of course that assumes everyone eating pie is also working to grow the pie, but that’s a separate issue for now.

Productivity and Division of Labor

Why does having more people lead to more productivity? A big part of it comes down to division of labor and specialization. The best way to get really good at something is to do more of it. In a small community, doing just one thing simply isn’t possible. Everyone has to be somewhat of a generalist in order to survive. But with a larger population, being a specialist becomes possible. In fact, that’s the purpose of money, as I explained here.

The more specialized an economy becomes, the more efficient it can be. There are big economies of scale in almost every task or process. So for example, if a single person tried to build a car from scratch, it would be extremely difficult and take a very long time. However, if you have a thousand people building a car, each doing a specific job, they can become very good at doing that specific job and do it much faster. And then you can move that process to a factory, and build machines to do specific jobs, and add even more efficiency.

But that only works if you’re building more than one car. It doesn’t make sense to build a huge factory full of specialized equipment that takes lots of time and effort to design and manufacture, and then only build one car. You need to sell thousands of cars, maybe even millions of cars, to pay off that initial investment. So division of labor and specialization relies on large populations in two different ways. First, you need a large population to have enough people to specialize in each task. But second and just as importantly, you need a large population of buyers for the finished product. You need a big market in order to make mass production economical.

Think of a computer or smartphone. It takes thousands of specialized processes, thousands of complex parts, and millions of people doing specialized jobs to extract the raw materials, process them, and assemble them into a piece of electronic hardware. And electronics are relatively expensive anyway. Imagine how impossible it would be to manufacture electronics economically, if the market demand wasn’t literally in the billions of units.

Stairs Up, Elevator Down

We’ve seen exponential increases in productivity over the past few centuries, resulting in higher living standards even as population exploded. Now, facing the prospect of a drastic trend reversal, what will happen to productivity and living standards? The typical sentiment seems to be “well, there are a lot of people already competing for resources, so if population does decline, that will just reduce the competition and leave a bigger slice of pie for each person, so we’ll all be getting wealthier as a result of population decline.”

This seems reasonable at first glance. Surely dividing the economic pie into fewer slices means a bigger slice for everyone, right? But remember, more specialization and division of labor is what made the pie as big as it is to begin with. And specialization depends on large populations for both the supply of specialized labor, and the demand for finished goods. Can complex supply chains and mass production withstand population reduction intact? I don’t think the answer is clear.

The idea that it will all be okay, and we’ll get wealthier as population falls, is based on some faulty assumptions. It assumes that wealth is basically some fixed inventory of “things” that exist, and it’s all a matter of distribution. That’s typical Marxist thinking, similar to the reasoning behind “tax the rich” and other utopian wealth transfer schemes.

The reality is, wealth is a dynamic concept with strong network effects. For example, a grocery store in a large city can be a valuable asset with a large potential income stream. The same store in a small village with a declining population can be an unprofitable and effectively worthless liability.

Even something as permanent as a house is very susceptible to network effects. If you currently live in an area where housing is scarce and expensive, you might think a declining population would be the perfect solution to high housing costs. However, if you look at a place that’s already facing the beginnings of a population decline, you’ll see it’s not actually that simple. Japan, for example, is already facing an aging and declining population. And sure enough, you can get a house in Japan for free, or basically free. Sounds amazing, right? Not really.

If you check out the reason houses are given away in Japan, you’ll find a depressing reality. Most of the free houses are in rural areas or villages where the population is declining, often to the point that the village becomes uninhabited and abandoned. It’s so bad that in 2018, 13.6% of houses in Japan were vacant. Why do villages become uninhabited? Well, it turns out that a certain population level is necessary to support the services and businesses people need. When the population falls too low, specialized businesses can no longer operated profitably. It’s the exact issue we discussed with division of labor and the need for a high population to provide a market for the specialist to survive. As the local stores, entertainment venues, and businesses close, and skilled tradesmen move away to larger population centers with more customers, living in the village becomes difficult and depressing, if not impossible. So at a certain critical level, a village that’s too isolated will reach a tipping point where everyone leaves as fast as possible. And it turns out that an abandoned house in a remote village or rural area without any nearby services and businesses is worth… nothing. Nobody wants to live there, nobody wants to spend the money to maintain the house, nobody wants to pay the taxes needed to maintain the utilities the town relied on. So they try to give the houses away to anyone who agrees to live there, often without much success.

So on a local level, population might rise gradually over time, but when that process reverses and population declines to a certain level, it can collapse rather quickly from there.

I expect the same incentives to play out on a larger scale as well. Complex supply chains and extreme specialization lead to massive productivity. But there’s also a downside, which is the fragility of the system. Specialization might mean one shop can make all the widgets needed for a specific application, for the whole globe. That’s great while it lasts, but what happens when the owner of that shop retires with his lifetime of knowledge and experience? Will there be someone equally capable ready to fill his shoes? Hopefully… But spread that problem out across the global economy, and cracks start to appear. A specialized part is unavailable. So a machine that relies on that part breaks down and can’t be repaired. So a new machine needs to be built, which is a big expense that drives up costs and prices. And with a falling population, demand goes down. Now businesses are spending more to make fewer items, so they have to raise prices to stay profitable. Now fewer people can afford the item, so demand falls even further. Eventually the business is forced to close, and other industries that relied on the items they produced are crippled. Things become more expensive, or unavailable at any price. Living standards fall. What was a stairway up becomes an elevator down.

Hope, From the Parasite Class?

All that being said, I’m not completely pessimistic about the future. I think the potential for an acceptable outcome exists.

I see two broad groups of people in the economy; producers, and parasites. One thing the increasing productivity has done is made it easier than ever to survive. Food is plentiful globally, the only issues are with distribution. Medical advances save countless lives. Everything is more abundant than ever before. All that has led to a very “soft” economic reality. There’s a lot of non-essential production, which means a lot of wealth can be redistributed to people who contribute nothing, and if it’s done carefully, most people won’t even notice. And that is exactly what has happened, in spades.

There are welfare programs of every type and description, and handouts to people for every reason imaginable. It’s never been easier to survive without lifting a finger. So millions of able-bodied men choose to do just that.

Besides the voluntarily idle, the economy is full of “bullshit jobs.” Shoutout to David Graeber’s book with that title. (It’s an excellent book and one I would highly recommend, even though the author was a Marxist and his conclusions are completely wrong.) A 2015 British poll asked people, “Does your job make a meaningful contribution to the world?” Only 50% said yes, while 37% said no and 13% were uncertain.

This won’t be a surprise to anyone who’s operated a business, or even worked in the private sector in general. There are three types of jobs; jobs that accomplish something productive, jobs that accomplish nothing of value, and jobs that actually hinder people trying to accomplish something productive. The number of jobs in the last two categories has grown massively over the years. This would include a lot of unnecessary administrative jobs, burdensome regulatory jobs, useless DEI and HR jobs, a large percentage of public sector jobs, most of the military-industrial complex, and the list is endless. All these jobs accomplish nothing worthwhile at best, and actively discourage those who are trying to accomplish something at worst.

Even among jobs that do accomplish some useful purpose, the amount of time spent actually doing the job continues to decline. According to a 2016 poll, American office workers spent only 39% of their workday actually doing their primary task. The other 61% was largely wasted on unproductive administrative tasks and meetings, answering emails, and just simply wasting time.

I could go on, but the point is, there’s a lot of slack in the economy. We’ve become so productive that the number of people actually doing the work to keep everyone fed, clothed, and cared for is only a small percentage of the population. In one sense, that’s a cause for optimism. The population could decline a lot, and we’d still have enough bodies to man the economic engine, as it were.

Aging

The thing with population decline, though, is nobody gets to choose who goes first. Not unless you’re a psychopathic dictator. So populations get old, then they get small. This means that the number of dependents in the economy rises naturally. Once people retire, they still need someone to grow the food, keep the lights on, and provide the medical care. And it doesn’t matter how much money the retirees have saved, either. Money is just a claim on wealth. The goods and services actually have to be provided by someone, and if that someone was never born, all the money in the world won’t change anything.

And the aging occurs on top of all the people already taking from the economy without contributing anything of value. So that seems like a big problem.

Currently, wealth redistribution happens through a combination of direct taxes, indirect taxation through deficit spending, and the whole gamut of games that happen when banks create credit/debt money by making loans. In a lot of cases, it’s very indirect and difficult to pin down. For example, someone has a “job” in a government office, enforcing pointless regulations that actually hinder someone in the private sector from producing something useful. Their paycheck comes from the government, so a combination of taxes on productive people, and deficit spending, which is also a tax on productive people. But they “have a job,” so who’s going to question their contribution to society? On the other hand, it could be a banker or hedge fund manager. They might be pulling in a massive salary, but at the core all they’re really doing is finding creative financial ways to transfer wealth from productive people to themselves, without contributing anything of value.

You’ll notice a common theme if you think about this problem deeply. Most of the wealth transfer that supports the unproductive, whether that’s welfare recipients, retirees, bureaucrats, corporate middle managers, or weapons manufacturers, is only possible through expanding the money supply. There’s a limit to how much direct taxation the productive will bear while the option to collect welfare exists. At a certain point, people conclude that working hard every day isn’t worth it, when taxes take so much of their wages that they could make almost as much without working at all. So the balance of what it takes to support the dependent class has to come indirectly, through new money creation.

As long as the declining population happens under the existing monetary system, the future looks bleak. There’s no limit to how much money creation and inflation the parasite class will use in an attempt to avoid work. They’ll continue to suck the productive class dry until the workers give up in disgust, and the currency collapses into hyperinflation. And you can’t run a complex economy without functional money, so productivity inevitably collapses with the currency.

The optimistic view is that we don’t have to continue supporting the failed credit/debt monetary system. It’s hurting productivity, messing up incentives, and contributing to increasing wealth inequality and lower living standards for the middle class. If we walk away from that system and adopt a hard money standard, the possibility of inflationary wealth redistribution vanishes. The welfare and warfare programs have to be slashed. The parasite class is forced to get busy, or starve. In that scenario, the declining population of workers can be offset by a massive shift away from “bullshit jobs” and into actual productive work.

While that might not be a permanent solution to declining population, it would at least give us time to find a real solution, without having our complex economy collapse and send our living standards back to the 17th century.

It’s a complex issue with many possible outcomes, but I think a close look at the effects of the monetary system on productivity shows one obvious problem that will make the situation worse than necessary. Moving to a better monetary system and creating incentives for productivity would do a lot to reduce the economic impacts of a declining population.