The Fertility Rate Is Falling. Time To Panic? Not For Women Like Us.

By Karen and Erica

Lots of people seem to be worried about the falling fertility rate. Should we panic, too?

Of course not. We know better. With the benefit of decades of experience, we can see opportunity in front of us.

To start at the beginning: we have been reading that, contrary to what some people thought would happen in the pandemic, the fertility rate in the U.S. and many other countries continued to fall, following a trend that started several years before. That means fewer younger people in proportion to the growing number of older people, many of whom will live longer than ever before.

How do we think about this?

First, we love younger people. And children. And babies. We don’t wish for a society where older people rule, we wish for an intergenerational society where we all live and work together. On that theme, we enjoyed a recent Medium article about Geriatric Millennials—people who were born in the 1980s and straddle technological generations. We are strongly of the view that the world of the future will be better if that world accommodate people of all ages. That will be easier if we have interpreters to explain things across generations.

So, even though we are aware of the science suggesting that the best way to mitigate climate change is to have one fewer child, and even though we know people of child-bearing age who are taking that message to heart, we still hope for robust generations behind us. Apparently China does too.

But whatever the long term trends, we are now in a place where the balance is shifting, and some people are panicking. There are many grave predictions. Markets will dry up. Employers will be unable to find workers. Productivity will fall. Frail older people will not get the assistance they need. Needy and greedy older people will soak up all resources with untrammeled health costs and life demands.

Well, all of this could happen. But there is room to wonder if it is the most likely outcome. If we use our brains we think we can steer a different course.

First, let’s get the the data, especially for people over 65. Not just numbers. Data about the characteristics of people over 65, or over 75 or even older in this new age of healthy longevity. What can they do? What do they want to do? How do they want to live? Why shouldn’t they remain part of the world, with everyone else?

Once the data are understood, we need intelligent policies. For example, given the characteristics of longevity today, building lots of retirement communities where people are supposed to segregate starting at 65 is perhaps not the right response. Building intergenerational communities where people can offer each other the attributes of their age and experience seems much more productive.

What are the benefits and costs of recognizing that older humans are regular humans, just with more knowledge?

• One, it seems unlikely markets will dry up unless producers and marketers continue to act as if the only buyers are younger people. Everyone knows that Boomers are wealthy, and that we spend. But no-one markets to us—especially us women. If we have resources and we will live for decades, the markets will dry up only if producers and marketers refuse to see us as we are.

• Two, lots of us would be perfectly happy to work, and lots of us could do lots of projects. We don’t mean we want to take the jobs of younger people——we don’t. We want a new paradigm. We want to use our experience to help younger people move forward faster. We are entering a golden age of longevity, where people are likely to be of sound mind and body for decades, thus combining in the same person both vitality and experience. Employers can surely create innovative ways to use us. Irrational thinking that people over 65 can neither walk nor chew gum, let alone at the same time, hinders intelligent creativity.

• Three, for sure with the passage of years frailty will increase. But not nearly as quickly as in the past. We were amused by a recent article (paywall) in The Financial Times which pointed out that the top holding of one of the recently created longevity funds is Nike. Why? The author, who fully expects to get new knees in the future, posits that “the new old (and their new knees) aren’t the same as the old old.” Smart kid.

Makes sense to us. Thanks to public health investments in the 1950s, older people today are much healthier than people of the same age a century ago. And, if their value is recognized by giving them opportunities for productive engagement, they will remain healthier for longer. (Which, by the way, means if the longevity funds really want to make money they must broaden their outlook. They must invest in things that will make our lives more adventurous and fun, not just things that anticipate our decline.)

So our view is—don’t panic. Instead, understand the data and plan for the future. People of our generation have been doing that for a long time, so let us participate if you want the best outcome.