logo
The Feminist Case for Spending Billions to Boost the Birthrate

The Feminist Case for Spending Billions to Boost the Birthrate

New York Times20-06-2025
There is a certain type of problem whose sheer time scale makes solutions difficult: The longer the time between today's decisions and tomorrow's catastrophes, the harder it is to demand sacrifices now in order to ensure those catastrophes never happen. Climate change is the obvious example.
But it's increasingly clear that there is another: population decline. As the problem of falling birthrates attracts more concern — and previous efforts to reverse it have proved insufficient — a growing body of research indicates that a genuine solution will require a paradigm shift in society's understanding about what is worth paying for and who ought to pay it.
Across most of the world, fertility rates are falling. As economies develop, fertility rates tend to decline — and when economies develop especially quickly, fertility rates often plummet to particularly low levels. In many countries they are already below 2.1 births per woman, the 'replacement level' needed to keep populations steady from one generation to the next.
If current trends continue, by 2050 more than three-quarters of countries will be below replacement-level fertility. By 2100, populations in some major economies will fall by 20 to 50 percent. And because birthrates compound like debt, the further fertility rates drop in one generation, the more they would need to increase in the next one to make up the numbers.
If birthrates do not change, the eventual result would be human extinction. That is a long way off, but population shrinkage is likely to have severe consequences far sooner. As the ratio of working-aged adults to dependent children and retirees falls, there are fewer workers to support the social safety net. The result is that taxes rise, the quality of public services deteriorates, and the economy eventually shrinks.
Politicians, policymakers and the public increasingly realize that this is a serious problem. And yet despite a variety of financial incentives, ad campaigns and other policies, birthrates have continued to fall.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone
How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone

Fast Company

time8 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone

Not long ago, leaders largely steered clear of the rough-and-tumble of politics. They inhabited a culture of impartiality, and for the most part stayed in their lane, rising now and then when called upon to offer observations about their specific sectors. Those times are over. We now live in an era of CEO activism, where shareholders, employees, and consumers expect corporate leaders to take a stand on issues far beyond their core industry—issues like immigration, DEI, or gender rights. Whereas before, hardly anyone outside of their industry could pick a chief executives out of a lineup, today's business leaders from Howard Schultz to Bill Gates to Elon Musk are household names, with the ability to influence public discourse—and policy—with a single tweet. For a business, there are distinct advantages to taking a political stand. At the same time, there is a fine line between brand enhancement and brand destruction. In this climate, how can a leader be transparent about her or his belief system without alienating anyone? Rewards and Risks First, it's hard, if not impossible, to reveal your belief system without alienating someone. It's almost a given: audiences and stakeholders these days may demand a political stand, but they can also be thin-skinned and easily offended when they don't agree with that stand. For the leader, the key is to avoid alienating significant portions of the constituencies and stakeholders responsible for the company's ultimate success: shareholders, employees, and consumers. When it comes to affiliating openly with a political figure or party, there can be advantages, such as privileged access and perhaps the ability to favorably influence policy direction. That said, there are also risks. Some of them are obvious: political fortunes are volatile, and public opinion is fickle, both of which can spell trouble for an aligned business. Political leaders have many priorities, and can shift their own positions on a dime, leaving a company that has publicly pledged allegiance with a case of whiplash. They are also prone to scandal, leaving aligned brands exposed to public outrage. Moreover, while there are certainly dangers in speaking out, silence can also have negative consequences in the public eye. It's important to realize that political parties, personalities, even movements come and go. Leaders are in this for the long haul; they should want their company to prosper for more than one election cycle. Recent events demonstrate the power of public opinion. The Trump administration's executive orders against diversity and inclusion initiatives split the business communities. Target rushed to align with the new directives, but Costco remained true to its own DEI stance. As a result, consumers punished Target and rewarded Costco. Staying true to the core Remember that politicians are paid to be politicians. Executives are not. Leaders are paid to ensure a company grows and prospers far into the future. That might mean rubbing elbows with those in power, or even contributing to campaigns, but it does not have to mean selling the soul of your identity, i.e. politicizing the brand or dragging a company's image (along with you) for the sake of a small short-term advantage. Reputations are hard to rebuild, and customers, once lost, are hard to reclaim. While a leader's personal beliefs may inform actions both private and professional, there are a few basic principles that can act as guardrails, providing the freedom to be transparent while preventing the leader's viewpoints and actions from creating conflicts and harming the company's fortunes. 1. Focus on values, not politics Nobody expects an executive and a workforce of thousands to agree on every issue. But a leader can set the tone by emphasizing core organizational values rather than personal political opinions. Companies are strongest when they articulate and consistently adhere to a clear set of values—regardless of shifting political winds. 2. Tie beliefs to business mission As a leader, you are a steward of your company's mission—not a political spokesperson. If your personal convictions align with your business's purpose, express them in a way that supports that mission. If they don't, reflect on whether your current role aligns with your values. A CEO thrives when personal belief and business purpose reinforce one another. 3. Build credibility through consistency While political trends are fickle, brand trust is built over time. Consumers reward companies that consistently uphold their stated commitments—whether to sustainability, product quality, or inclusion. Consistency is credibility. 4. Respect dissent, invite dialogue Foster a culture where respectful disagreement is welcome. Employees should feel safe expressing differing opinions without fear of retaliation. Provide spaces—forums, listening sessions, anonymous feedback tools—for difficult conversations to happen constructively. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a liability. 5. Be strategic If you choose to speak out, do so with intention. Consult your communications team, evaluate stakeholder impact, and conduct a risk-benefit analysis. As Harvard Business Review contributors Aaron Chatterji and Michael W. Toffel advise: 'Select issues carefully, reflect on the best times and approaches to get involved, consider the potential for backlash, and measure results.' Who's doing it right? A number of well-known CEOs have made a point of voicing their beliefs, and have not suffered for it. On the contrary, they have developed a leadership style that manages to be both values-informed and advantageous from a business standpoint. 1. Satya Nadella (Microsoft). Nadella openly discusses empathy and his Hindu faith, speaking often of caring for his son with special needs. He is upfront about his personal values of humility and purpose, but does not impose these upon the firm directly, emphasizing instead organizational culture and customer impact. Under his watch, Microsoft has quadrupled its market capitalization. 2. Dan Schulman (former CEO, PayPal). Schulman has been vocal in support of social justice and economic inclusion, which he links to his personal Jewish ethical values. PayPal pulled out of North Carolina to protest anti-LGBTQ legislation, a move that was criticized by the right but rewarded by stakeholders, with shareholder returns remaining strong. 3. Rose Marcario (former CEO, Patagonia). Markario's Buddhist beliefs and environmental ethics were strongly aligned with Patagonia's corporate mission. So when the company sued the Trump administration over its intention to dismantle and sell off national monuments, it mobilized the company's core outdoor audience and strengthened the brand, with increases in both consumer loyalty and profits. 4. Ken Frazier (former CEO, Merck). In 2017, Frazier resigned from President Trump's American Manufacturing Council following the administration's tepid response to the white supremacist marches and ensuing violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Frazier's action was seen as deeply principled, and Merck's shareholder value was not damaged. Other CEOs (UnderArmour, Intel, et al) followed suit, in part because Frazier's action created a public demand for moral leadership. Finding balance In the end, leaders must balance their own need to reveal their personal beliefs with the greater good of the organization. This is both an internal and external journey that requires a high degree of reflection as well as an appreciation for the complexity of the company and its role in both the market and society. It's an extremely challenging time to be a leader, but also an exciting one.

US and EU Leaders Shake Hands Following Trade Deal
US and EU Leaders Shake Hands Following Trade Deal

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US and EU Leaders Shake Hands Following Trade Deal

President Trump shakes hands with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen following trade deal. The deal will see the bloc face 15% tariffs on most of its exports, including automobiles, staving off a trade war that could have delivered a hammer blow to the global economy. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store