Tag Archive for: Economics Capitalism

Having Fewer Babies Will Cost U.S. Economy ‘Quadrillions of Dollars’: Study

The West’s growing epidemic of childlessness and depopulation will “fundamentally alter our societies” and impose “an existential economic crisis” on the United States that will cost the U.S. alone “quadrillions of dollars,” according to two new reports.

Despite decades of warnings about overpopulation, the United States and Europe have long had fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per family. The global population bust will lead to nations with lower GDP, higher welfare spending, fewer workers, less economic power — and, possibly, a shift away from a global order led by the once-Christian West to one overwhelmed by a growing Muslim population.

“If we are unable to address our fertility crisis, the U.S. will face an existential economic crisis driven by a steep decline in fertility rates — one that could have an impact measured in the quadrillions of dollars,” wrote Jesús Fernández-Villaverde in The American Enterprise, the monthly publication of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “[Y]es, tackling fertility has an impact measured in discounted terms of quadrillions of dollars, not just small change like a miserly trillion dollars here or there.”

“Seems bad,” quipped Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS).

If anything, the economic concerns minimize the full extent of the social revolution soon to be ushered in through low fertility, say experts in Europe.

The world’s impending underpopulation “should be treated as a primary political issue: We will be witnessing the reshaping of our region’s social, economic, and political landscape, impacting social structure, infrastructure, labour force, retirement, old age and health, state finances, and security — almost every aspect of life. It will break the system,” wrote Gudrun Kugler of Austria.

Global Population Bust

No one questions the fact that nearly every corner of the globe is producing fewer babies. Global fertility has plunged from five children per woman in 1950 to around 2.25 children per woman in 2023, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s “World Population Prospects” report. “Globally, the total fertility rate is likely already below replacement — that is, below the level needed to sustain the population in the long run, approximately 2.18 children per woman. In the U.S., it’s around 1.6,” wrote Fernández-Villaverde.

The birthrate in every society on nearly every continent is below replacement level, except sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, noted Kugler — who is vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA).

Of OSCE region’s 56 member nations, only the primarily Muslim nations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan currently have replacement-level birthrates. Roman Catholic Malta had the lowest birthrate at 1.08. “Even in India birth rates have fallen below replacement levels: Only five out of thirty-six states are now above replacement level,” noted the OSCE report. After decades of a brutally enforced one-child policy, “China could lose as many as 600 million inhabitants by the end of the century,” added Fernández-Villaverde.

“This trend is evident in both wealthy and poor nations, in religious and secular states, in countries with right-wing governments, as well as those with left-wing governments, and in nations with free abortion access and those with restrictive abortion laws,” wrote Fernández-Villaverde.

However, abortion impacts the global fertility replacement level in one way: “[T]he global replacement rate of 2.18 is slightly higher than that of the U.S. due to selective abortion of girls in Asia and higher female mortality in Africa.”

To make matters worse, the full extent of the problem is hidden by a phenomenon known as “population momentum”: Women in the Millennial and Gen Z cohorts continue to have babies while their parents are alive, coasting on previous fertility rates. “All of today’s global population growth is solely a result of this momentum,” stated the AEI report.

The largest driver of the West’s demographic decline is unplanned childlessness. While those who become parents have roughly the same amount of children as usual, the rates of those who never have children has increased as much as 10-fold in Italy. Most were not childless by choice: Only 32% of childless Europeans did not want children, compared with 38% who desired children but never had them, noted Kugler in her report, “Demographic Change in the OSCE Region: Analysis, Impact and Possible Solutions of a Mega Trend Reshaping Society.”

These changes will have a profound impact on the entire world.

Economic Catastrophe

With fewer children, the U.S. economic engine will soon run out of fuel. It’s simple math: “Since the Civil War, the long-term average growth rate of output per worker in the U.S. has been approximately 1.9% annually,” according to Fernández-Villaverde. Economic growth is the output per worker plus the size of the labor pool. With fewer children, American GDP will grow at a slower rate, and “in downturns, the economy will contract, not just grow more slowly.”

The population advantage can be measured by comparing the U.S. to one of the nations at the forefront of demographic decline: Japan. From 1991 to 2019, the U.S. averaged 2.53% average economic growth, while the Japanese economy grew by only 0.83%. For all but seven of those years, the Japanese worker’s productivity exceeded that of his American counterpart. The difference? The U.S. labor force increased by 0.91% annually, while the Japanese population contracted by 0.54% a year.

“Once we begin to contemplate the fiscal implications of a declining population, it becomes difficult to focus on anything else,” concluded Fernández-Villaverde.

Dire Consequences

The consequences of the West’s birthrate falling below replacement level will be profound, according to the studies. Fewer workers will create labor shortages, leading to lower innovation, a sluggish economy, and rising dependency. A less productive society will decimate the tax base, lowering the amount of revenue the government collects and, in the process, straining pension systems and welfare programs.

This is particularly true of government transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In Austria, by 2042, “there will be only two working people for every pensioner, compared to today’s ratio of three to one,” noted Kugler.

An aging population exponentially increases a society’s health care costs. In Austria, those over the age of 60 make twice as many doctor visits as those under that age. “In Spain, in 2011, 80% of all pharmaceutical expenses were made by people aged 65 or more, who were 17% of the population then,” Kugler wrote.

Fewer babies being born also transforms societies in more profound ways beyond those that can be measured on a spreadsheet. One is growing social isolation and hopelessness. In 2023, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued the first-ever report on America’s “epidemic of loneliness.” In the U.K., 7.1% of the population — or 3.83 million Britons — report experiencing “chronic loneliness.” Smaller families and a shrinking social circle, worsened by decreasing church attendance, breed depression.

Depopulation hits rural areas the hardest. A smaller national population increases urbanization, even as most Americans say they would rather live in a small town or rural area. Those in rural areas may see vital resources such as hospitals and grocery stores close.

A smaller population also has the potential to alter the global balance of power. Fewer people also impact the government’s ability to pay the national debt and maintain an adequate armed force deterrent. Overall noted Kugler, a smaller population in the West “could lead to a shift in geopolitical dynamics, as Europe’s demographic decline may reduce its strategic importance in global affairs.”

Increased Immigration Cannot Solve the Problem

The U.S. population has only grown due to immigration, which brings its own challenges to social cohesion. Yet increasing immigration levels cannot even solve the economic problems posed by a shrinking populace, because, wrote Fernández-Villaverde, most legal immigrants are a net economic drain. “[O]nly at the top 10th percentiles are [immigrants] net contributors” to the economy. “In other words, all immigrants that come to the US are below the 90th percentile and won’t help solve the fiscal woes created by low fertility.”

Furthermore, the children of immigrants pose similar issues. “European countries that have the detailed databases required to compute these numbers carefully have found that not even the second-generation (i.e., the sons of immigrants born in the country) is a net contributor to the welfare state,” he noted.

Perhaps with this in mind, President Donald Trump has proposed creating a $5 million “Gold Card” visa, granting those who purchase it legal residency and a path to U.S. citizenship.

All told, wrote Kugler, the West’s way of life cannot continue “without major adjustments.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Philanthrocapitalism and Collectivism

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.


In order to fully comprehend the scope of the planned globalist assault on your children’s minds, it is helpful to review Norman Dodd’s 1982 interview with G. Edward Griffin, and Dodd’s stunning 1954 Report (Chapter 9). You will recall that Norman Dodd was appointed Director of Research of the Reece Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations and determine if their activities could justifiably be labeled un-American. Dodd examined the recorded minutes of the Carnegie Corporation’s board meetings and discovered how tax-exempt foundations in America, since at least 1945, had been operating to promote a hidden agenda. The foundations’ real objectives were to influence American educational institutions and control foreign policy agencies of the federal government in order to condition Americans to accept world government. The government was to be based on the principle of collectivism (socialism) and ruled by the same interests that control tax-exempt foundations.

Twenty years after the Dodd Report, in 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Steve J. Sands explores its seismic societal consequences and reviews the history of third-party investment management in America in his previously referenced article, “Who Owns Corporate America?[i] Prior to 1980, most investments were made directly by each corporation. Sands asks, “What changed around 1980 to make the market shift toward third-party investment management?” The answer is fascinating:

In 1974 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was passed. One of the elements of ERISA was that it made it clear that companies could use third-party investment management. Hence the rise of third-party investment management by companies like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard Group. BlackRock was founded in 1988. Vanguard was founded in 1975. While State Street was founded in 1792 [as Union Bank], it created the Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipt (SPDR) in 1993. State Street’s SPDR 500 (SPY) Trust exchange-traded fund (ETF) was the first of its kind, and they are now one of the largest ETF providers worldwide. Trading on SPY began January 29, 1993. ETFs are widely used for mutual fund investments by third-party investment companies. The clear demarcation from direct to third-party investment management was the passage of ERISA.

It is interesting to note that while ERISA’s intent was to fix pension problems [crisis], one of the solutions was to introduce the allowance of third-party investment firms. The report from the WEF states:

With economic and demographic fundamentals promoting ever faster growth in institutional assets since around 1980, the stage was set for the emergence of the modern asset management industry.

Sands provides an incisive timeline of events chronicling the shift from direct investment to third-party investment management, and its acquisition of controlling interests in America’s publicly held companies:

Timeline

  • 1965/1967: Vance Hartke introduces and Jacob Javits sponsors Pension Reform bills
  • 1971: World Economic Forum founded
  • 1972: Documentary Pensions: The Broken Promises aired
  • 1974: Jacob Javits main architect of ERISA
  • 1974: Gerald Ford became President with Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President
  • 1974: Ford signs ERISA into law
  • 1975: Vanguard founded
  • 1988: BlackRock founded
  • 1993: State Street created SPDRs
  • Today: BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street together have a 20% ownership in American’s S&P 500 and Fortune 1000 companies

Under the heading “Wash, Rinse, Repeat,” Sands concludes with a reflection on philanthrocapitalism (discussed just below) and its application of the Hegelian dialectic for social change at work. Philanthrocapitalism manifests the never let a crisis go to waste axiom invoked by political figures from Winston Churchill, to Saul Alinsky, to the Obama Administration’s Rahm Emanuel.

As with other crises we have seen in the last 50 years, this [pension] crisis takes on the same formula:

  1. Take advantage of a problem;
  2. Gain public support through the media;
  3. Present a solution through passage of legislation.
  4. The legislation has secondary consequences not known by the public at large. Thereby, another crisis does not go to waste.

The 1954 Dodd Report exposed the hidden agenda of tax-exempt foundations, including the Carnegie Corporation. In 2006 the agenda was given a name by an editor at The Economist magazine, Matthew Bishop. He named it philanthrocapitalismcapitalism working for the good of mankind. Bishop’s ideas were expanded into a book he co-wrote with Executive Director of the Social Progress Imperative, Michael Green, Philanthropic Capitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World.[ii] The title’s deceitful self-description is the marketing strategy for selling the sinister philanthrocapitalism to an unsuspecting public.

An extremely informative analysis of philanthropic capitalism written by University of Essex, UK, sociologists Linsey McGoey, Darren Thiel, and Robin West was published in Politix, Volume 121, Issue 1, January 2018, pages 29–54. “Philanthrocapitalism and crimes of the powerful[iii]concludes with an instructive summary of the humanitarian hoax of philanthropic capitalism:

Sometimes new social practices solidify as tolerable and even admirable so quickly that people forget that, not long before, those same practices were seen as unacceptable or even harmful—and the philanthrocapitalism movement provides one such example. Until recently, the idea that personal profiteering is naturally ‘philanthropic’ for the wider community and inevitably beneficial to humankind was a laughable proposition. Today this has changed, and the concept of philanthrocapitalism is being hailed across the political spectrum as a laudable way to improve human welfare, and, in just over 10 years, the notion of philanthrocapitalism has evolved from a derided fringe philosophy to a powerful ‘gospel’ of wealth….

The novelty of our approach has been to document the role that philanthrocapitalists play in proselytizing a gospel of market munificence. We have shown that what is really new about the ‘new’ philanthropy is not the comparative magnitude of new giving practices, but the structure of giving, and particularly the worrying and likely harmful enlargement of the sphere of entities, public or private, that are deemed as deserving charity. These structural changes have enabled organizations such as the Gates Foundation to use comparatively small ‘gifts’ in order to command widespread public allegiance and even reverence—smothering demands for corporate accountability and higher taxes. Old metaphors about the ‘vampire-like’ tendencies of capitalists have missed the most important thing to remember about vampires: they are most dangerous when circulating in disguise among the living, offering a warm smile that conceals their darker being.

The Sands Timeline above reveals how the pension crisis provided public support for passage of ERISA in 1974, and resulted in a seismic economic paradigm shift away from capitalism toward managerialism in America today. The economic shift reflects a wider philosophic shift away from individualism and laissez-faire capitalism based on private ownership, competition, free trade, self-reliance, self-interest, and the principles of supply and demand. The movement toward managerialism is a gargantuan leap toward collectivism, where the ruling managerial elite, not individuals, determine the course of one’s life through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics that include diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

In response to the deceit of philanthrocapitalism, a new word is finding its way into the lexicon. A philanthropath is a psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist. Beware the philanthropath!

©2024. Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.


Please visit Linda’s Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com  and her website: lindagoudsmit.com


[i] Who Owns Corporate America?https://stevenjsands.com/who-owns-corporate-america/

[ii] Philanthropic Capitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World; Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, Bloomsbury Press; Reprint edition, 2009; https://archive.org/details/philanthrocapita00matt

[iii] Philanthrocapitalism and crimes of the powerfulhttps://www.cairn-int.info/abstract-E_POX_121_0029–philanthrocapitalism-and-crimes-of-the.htm?contenu=article