I'd also like to point out that while births has gently fallen over the past few years, the " lowest annual natural increase since World War II" that the article mentions may have been related to the spike in deaths since COVID: https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/births-and-deaths
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1648 readers
7 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use [email protected]
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in [email protected]
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to [email protected]
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not a stats person at all so I may be confused.. but the article is using figures from 2023 and that graph only goes to 2022. They say the natural increase was only 19071 last year, while deaths were ever so slightly lower than 2022. Natural increase in 2022 was 20313. Were we still having a lot of COVID related deaths last year?
Edit:
This combination - fewer births and more women of child-bearing age - resulted in a record-low fertility rate of 1.56 births per woman.
The total fertility rate has been below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman since 2013. The replacement rate is the number of births women need to have on average for the population to replace itself in the long term, with no migration.
Apparently we've been below the replacement rate since 2013!?
Were we still having a lot of COVID related deaths last year?
I thought so, but it seems our baseline is now only a couple of deaths per week. The graph I linked doesn't have 2023 data, and I can't seem to find any, so I'd be curious to see if deaths fell last year or stayed high.
Apparently we’ve been below the replacement rate since 2013!?
Weird. We have more births than deaths, so I'm curious about this. Any experts that can weigh in on the complexities of this? Is it something to do with people living longer so the low birthrate doesn't show in the statistics of people currently dying, or something like that?
Ok I found this with some googling, but I think I’m not smart enough to understand it:
The total fertility rate in a specific year is defined as the total number of children that would be born to each woman if she were to live to the end of her child-bearing years and give birth to children in alignment with the prevailing age-specific fertility rates. It is calculated by totalling the age-specific fertility rates as defined over five-year intervals. Assuming no net migration and unchanged mortality, a total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman ensures a broadly stable population. Together with mortality and migration, fertility is an element of population growth, reflecting both the causes and effects of economic and social developments. The reasons for the dramatic decline in birth rates during the past few decades include postponed family formation and child-bearing and a decrease in desired family sizes. This indicator is measured in children per woman.
Yeah I don't know. Like I get it at a conceptual level.
It basically says that they work out the fertility rate by dividing the number of women by the number of babies. They say they do it in 5 year blocks, I guess this accounts for say lots of kids or lots of old women skewing the numbers when they don't have babies.
As for why we have 38,000 deaths and 59,000 births and this is below the replacement rate, I start to feel like I understand but then decide I don't. The best answer I've found is a suggestion that births per women below 2.1 doesn't necessarily mean a shrinking population, because of the distribution of women of various ages may mean many women of childbearing age (say, through immigration) can cause the population to grow despite births per women being below 2.1.
It’s too late and I can’t wrap my head around it. Is there some effect from what the deaths and births are? As in it’s not necessarily old people dying and not all births are female which would then further impact the fertility rate?
I understand that the 2.1 replacement rate needed is assuming no migration. There will almost always be migration though.
I think I need to sleep and stop trying to understand this
Low fertility rates mean the death rate will be higher than the birth rate in the future. But not necessarily right now.
Imagine I build 100 robots, who will each live precisely 100 years. One robot chooses to build a replacement for itself, the rest do not. For 100 years, the death rate will be 0, and the birth rate will be 1. So more births than deaths. But the fertility rate is 0.01, so in 100 years the first generation will all die. Today the birth rate is higher, but low fertility means it'll be lower eventually.
37884 deaths in 2023 vs. 38574 in 2022. So a small decrease it looks like.
Ah nice. Digging back through the years, the spike doesn't feel as big anymore. For sure, the 2022 increase over 2021 of about 3,600 deaths is an increase not seen ever before in this dataset (which starts after WW2 was already well over), but in recent years the increase has been in the ballpark of 500 extra deaths per year (jumping around a lot in individual years). If we start from say 2018, then we expect about 2,500 more deaths in 2023 vs 2018. 2018 had about 33,000 deaths, so 2023 we would expect about 35,500 compared to the actual 37,800. Hmm, ok 2,000 more than expected.
And if we look at the extras from the year before, but minus the missing people from all the ones that didn't die in 2020 when we were in lockdown, the difference of about 4,000 gets us back in the ballpark of the number of people who have died from COVID.
When I started writing this I thought I was uncovering extra deaths from an unknown cause, but nah seems it's just COVID.
That was despite a 3 percent increase in the number of women aged between 15 and 49 - when most births occur.
This combination - fewer births and more women of child-bearing age - resulted in a record-low fertility rate of 1.56 births per woman.
The total fertility rate has been below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman since 2013.
It's been fascinating to see this global trend take hold. The ramifications will be interesting to say the least.
It had to happen sooner or later. We can't grow the global population forever.
Almost like you make it unbearable for the poor to have children. The ones that tend to have more rather than less.
Korea and Japan finding out what happens when replacement levels drop off the graph
From what I understand Japan has some of the highest health outcomes in the world and has a very high standard of living.
I don't think South Korea is not far behind them either.
Doesn't Japan have a working culture that glorifies long working hours and dedication to work, leaving little to no time for socialising and relationships? or has that changed in the last few years?
I don't know. The Japanese people I have met seem pretty well adjusted to me.
I think my info might be outdated, it seems like they’ve been working on changing it. According to Wikipedia their average annual working hours is less then us.
I have friends in Japan. The value given does not accurately reflect actual hours worked. There is a culture of long unpaid overtime hours, after hours social gatherings and more. They are not the worst, and they are trying to improve it, but it is still pretty bad.
The thing isn't health outcomes, it's the significant societal and economic problems happening and on the horizon that is the worry.
What societal problems?
What societal problems has the aging population has caused in Japan right now?
Did you read the article?
I don't get what your point is. Are you trying to argue that a rapidly ageing population will cause no problems?
It will not cause a major problem.
Certainly nothing can't be solved by importing immigrants.
Certainly not more problems than somehow forcing people to have more kids.
Read the article I posted. There are significant challenges beginning and more expected in several countries, Japan, Korea, and more, due to a rapidly aging population.
But if you wish to be contrarian and insist everything will be fine, whatever. I don't really care.
I guess you are right. They should start forcefully impregnating women or something.
The fuck are you on about?
Well we need to prevent an aging population right? There are only two ways to do that. Either we start killing old people or we forcefully impregnate women and pop out babies faster than the death and emigration rate.
An aging population is a huge problem right? We can't let it happen right? Look at the disaster that's happening in Japan right now right? They are having a huge problem with an aging population right?
Right?
I have no idea what the fuck you are on about, but you are arguing with yourself.
Is an aging population a major problem or not? If so should we do something about it or not?
You raised the alarm and in fact said we are going to suffer the same fate that has befallen Japan if we don't do something. Presumably Japan is suffering due to an aging population right?
Is an aging population a major problem or not?
Yes, it is a fact that it is already causing problems, and likely will become major. Read the article.
You raised the alarm and in fact said we are going to suffer the same fate that has befallen Japan if we don’t do something. Presumably Japan is suffering due to an aging population right?
You added "if we don't do something". I just said what is happening in Japan is a worry. Never said we would be like that, never said there is anything to be done about it.
Yes, it is a fact that it is already causing problems, and likely will become major. Read the article.
Ok great.
Now obviously we can't just let a major problem go unaddressed right? We have to do something about it right? We can't let our country turn into Japan right?
I made no such judgement or comment.
That's a lie. You made a judgment that said that an aging population is a massive problem and that it's hurting Japan and you used as an example of how much it's going to hurt us if we allow our population to age.
So clearly you think this is some dire and severe problem because you raised the alarm about it.
So now you want to say we should do nothing in the face of this massive problem? What's wrong with you?
Look dipshit, you can say whatever the hell you want but it won't change the fact that you are arguing against shit you made up.
Does a rapidly ageing population cause changes and problems? Yes, objectively. Does that mean we should force women to become pregnant to stop it? No, what's wrong with you?
Does a rapidly ageing population cause changes and problems? Yes, objectively. Does that mean we should force women to become pregnant to stop it? No, what’s wrong with you?
How else will you solve this urgent and important problem?
I don't know. I never said anything about a solution, did I?
Why not? Why are you bleating about a problem without even having an opinion on a solution.
Is someone incapable of recognizing a problem without knowing how to solve it?
If they can't even form an opinion on a solution and if the problem only has one or two solutions then yes that person is incapable of recognising the problem.
Bollocks, you sound just like ilovethebomb. One is able to recognize a problem without knowing a solution for the problem. To say otherwise is disingenuous at best.
The problem is simple and there are only two possible solutions maybe three if you push it. This isn't some complex thing.
If it's so simple why don't you post your solution then?
There are only three solutions.
- Implant babies in women.
- Allow more immigrants.
- Kill older people or at least urge them to kill themselves to solve this crisis that's going to destroy their country.
Then again I completely and utterly reject your insane alarmism over this issue. I don't think this is some massive problem that's going to destroy the country or GASP!!! make us like Japan. Imagine New Zealand being like Japan. Can anybody imagine something so horrible!!!
Honestly your alarmism is unhinged.
Man you really are a muppet aren't you?
Implant babies in women. Allow more immigrants. Kill older people or at least urge them to kill themselves to solve this crisis that’s going to destroy their country.
Or encourage families to have kids through incentives? Or increase wages and lower the cost of child care so couples can afford it now? Or combat social norms that women are supposed to stay at home? There are lots of ideas that aren't "force women to have babies" and "kill all old people". I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse, because I can't imagine you are so stupid to think that these are the only options.
Then again I completely and utterly reject your insane alarmism over this issue. I don’t think this is some massive problem that’s going to destroy the country or GASP!!! make us like Japan. Imagine New Zealand being like Japan. Can anybody imagine something so horrible!!!
You do realize it's not just me, but lots of countries and scientists around the world pointing to the problems that can arise from a rapidly aging population, right? Take Korea, for example. They have the worlds lowest birth rate, and this year it dropped even lower to 0.78 children per woman. By 2067, it is predicted that 46% of the population will be over 65. Can you really not grasp how this will have huge ramifications for a society? When the working population is drastically lower than it is now? How will this affect the economy? Who will look after all the retired people when they need care? And so on and so on. It's not a hard concept, despite you doing your damnedest to channel a moron.
Honestly your alarmism is unhinged.
What alarmism? I simply pointed out it will be a problem if it continues. I didn't shout "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW!" or anything, did I? I pointed out it is already starting to be a problem in other countries, which is true, and you started going on about forcing pregnancies and other stupid shit.
By the way, most countries where the birth rate is significantly below replacement level have started trying to combat this, usually with financial incentives for having children. Some, such as Korea, have spent billions on this. If it isn't a problem, why waste all that money?
Or encourage families to have kids through incentives?
Wait. I thought you said you were not capable of coming up with solutions.
You do realize it’s not just me, but lots of countries and scientists around the world pointing to the problems that can arise from a rapidly aging population, right?
Yea lots of scientists around the world are also claiming the covid vaccine is harmful.
hey have the worlds lowest birth rate, and this year it dropped even lower to 0.78 children per woman. By 2067, it is predicted that 46% of the population will be over 65. Can you really not grasp how this will have huge ramifications for a society?
Yea it will not have any major ramifications.
When the working population is drastically lower than it is now? How will this affect the economy?
With increased automation and AI it will not effect the economy at all. If anything it will help because we are going to need less people to do the same work anyway.
If it isn’t a problem, why waste all that money?
Religion mostly. Also cultural norms to a lesser extent.
What is a health outcome? As in life expectancy? Or ?
I think it's life expectancy and recovery from diseases and the prevalance of chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes etc.
view more: next ›