Low fertility may not be an economic threat, researchers argue
4d 2h ago by lemmy.zip/u/schizoidman in science from phys.org
Higher levels of education, increased labor force participation, and rising productivity can offset—and even outweigh—the effects of having fewer births. Lower fertility can enable greater investment per child, strengthening human capital and innovation while reducing dependency burdens over the coming decades.
Can they stop calling it lower fertility?
That would imply people are trying to conceive and failing, which would be concerning.
This is just lower birth rates. As in, people don't want to bring kids into this mess.
Lower Fertility = Less Slaves
Fertility is simply a concept in population dynamics for quantifying the number of offsprings. That’s what it is called, there is no covert agenda there.
I'd argue it's not the scientist's duty to alter their terminology so the layperson can better understand it - but the layperson's duty to learn what the terms actually mean.
Economists don't like telling the people that pay them to treat their workers and customers as people and actually care for them and not just use them as disposable resources to be exploited.
That's like that report from Amazon, where the high turnover made them cycle to almost all available people to work in their warehouse and literally not enough new suckers being born.
The difference between economists and actual scientists.