I liked this book more and more as I went along, but I still had a few beefs with it.

THINGS I LIKED

1. I found his observations on the effect that ideological sorting has on a region's politics to be very interesting, even though it was only tangentially related to fertility. In the 1976 presidential election, only 26.8% of counties went to either candidate by greater than a 20 point margin. In the 2004 presidential election, 45.3% of counties went to either candidate by greater than a 20 point margin. In both elections, the percentage of the popular vote was similar--it's not that American individuals became more Democratic/Republican, it's just that increasing mobility allowed like-minded people to collect together, polarizing election outcomes and leading to the election of more polarized Congressmen.

This plays out with families too. People who are married, religious, and want to have kids (these things are often found together) gradually group together, usually in suburbs/rural areas where things are cheaper and roomier. I found his discussion of Salt Lake City interesting: the actual city has recently started to go Democratic, but the surrounding suburbs have become even more Republican and Mormon. A small scale version of the Big Sort.

2. I liked his detailed examination of how various countries' efforts to boost fertility have failed. In short, the government is quite ineffective at convincing people to have children they don't want to have. In reading reactions to this book, I've noticed that liberal commentators usually use the opportunity to slam Last for not promoting policies like universal paid maternal leave, child subsidies, etc. What they seem to ignore is that Last does examine these policies, and find that they just don't work. They should re-read his discussion of Japan's and Singapore's pro-fertility legislation.

They should also re-read his discussion of France's pro-fertility legislation. While France's fertility rate of 2.08 might seem impressive for a Western European nation, it masks the fact that native-born French women have a fertility rate of 1.7 and foreign-born French residents have a fertility rate of 2.8. France's relatively high fertility rate is primarily due to immigration, not paid maternal leave, cash payments, national day care centers, etc.

3. Some commentators portray Last as anti-immigration, saying that his reluctance to champion more liberal immigration policies as the solution to this dilemma is a sign of him putting his partisanship ahead of the data. They must not have read the book very well. Last says, "One of the lessons from Japan and France is that no wealthy, industrialized nation can prop up its fertility rate without large-scale immigration. America is, as we have seen, no different. A reasonably liberal program of immigration is necessary for the long-term health of our country."

Last simply couches this with a reminder that immigrants' fertility tends to trend toward the American norm after a generation or two, and that we should expect fewer immigrants in the years ahead as increasing economic opportunities and declining fertility rates in Latin America give people less incentive to come here.

4. I like that he addressed the interplay between secularists' growing numbers due to adult conversion, which is stymied by secularists' low fertility rates and low success rates at raising the children they do have within their irreligion (most children raised by non-religious parents grow up to identify with some religion). I'm not sure whether religious fertility or secularist culture is stronger, and neither is Last, but I'm glad that he at least addressed this.

5. The book is a quick and easy read. I finished it in one night.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE

1. The author's prose is sometimes charged, labeling people as "crackpots", lampooning liberal beliefs, etc. I'm a staunch conservative, but I'm afraid that this type of rhetoric might limit this book's audience to the choir. The prose is also somewhat erratic, sometimes whipsawing between anecdotes and statistics without smooth transitions. The combination of these 2 things lends the book a somewhat frenetic, jigsaw feel.

2. While some of the author's proposals (decreasing FICA taxes for parents based on their number of children, to pay them back for supporting America's future taxpayers, etc.) seem like good places for discussion to start, he doesn't really flesh these out. For instance, decreasing these families' FICA payments would take further funds from a system that's already having trouble. How would he address this? Last doesn't really go into it.

He also tends to stretch some of his connections, sometimes accidentally. Sure, I buy that parents' spending less time in traffic and more time with their families can encourage a kid-friendly climate. But his citation seems to suggest (I think accidentally) that Dallas' lesser traffic is directly responsible for Dallas' higher fertility rate compared to Los Angeles.

SUMMARY

All in all, I enjoyed this book and would recommend it as an introduction to the subject to a reader who is pre-disposed to overlook its more colorful tendencies (aka a conservative reader) and discover the valuable information underneath. But if you're trying to convince a skeptic, I'd recommend a more neutral book/article.

Great read with concepts I disagree with but you can't really dispute. Something to seriously pinder for sure. I'm unsure how this even got on a list of mine to read. I highlighted the crap out of this book.

As we all know, economic growth depends on population growth. However, population growth takes a toll on nature and on personal finances. For many years through the 70's and 80's and 90's we read about the damages of uncontrolled population growth. But there was another drumbeat in the background; population decline. The author picks up the drumbeat of population decline, explains his methodology for determining population decline and goes on to cite the many drawbacks of aging and declining populations. It is thought provoking. I disagree with some of his assumptions, but there are some valid points also. It is a timely discussion

I read this book and liked it.

I've read all the negative reviews, and frankly, I think that the folks that wrote those reviews are putting their politics ahead of the quality of the book and its arguments. That is to say, they aren't willing to take a look at what is bound to happen if it doesn't jive with their political outlook.

The numbers are not controversial. They've been reported in the press for years--as soon as the baby boomers die off (in the US) and as soon as the generation born in the late 50's and early 60's in the third world die off, the population of the world will begin to decline. Don't believe this author if you don't like that he is a religious man, just look the numbers up on the internet (the UN has them) and you can see for yourself.

This book is written in a very conversational style that is very easy to grasp. His numbers are clear and all of them are cited. He gives a comprehensible prognosis and suggestions to avoid what the author deems will be a huge disaster. I never felt that the author was pushing his ideology on me, although he was clear as to what his values were. The author's values are not mine, but I am happy to listen to him and hear his very interesting argument.

I give this book 4 stars instead of 5 because, although he was clear, the author never made me feel that the population going down would be such a devastating thing. Social security will be destroyed, here and in all the developed world. China will have a huge mess trying to support its aging population. But, since this book is taking the long view (none of this mess is expected to take place for 50 years or so) I wasn't convinced that the long view for population decline (after the disruption caused by the initial shock) would be so bad.

Many of us alive today will see the strain put on society by fewer workers having to pay for more Social Security recipients (and other elders in the rest of the world) but none of us alive today, will live long enough to see the final outcome. I think there will be great disruption, but I think it may all turn out very happily with a smaller population.

So, although I don't agree with the author on all points, there is no controversy about his data. The population is going to go down. The question is what happens next. That is where I disagree with this author, but I certainly enjoyed my "discussion" with him as I read the book.

The only thing to find fault with in the book is that he will not more fully discuss the faith factor inherent in those having babies. Maybe he thought it was enough to mention it and give a few trends. Maybe he doesn't want to label and get into a tangle. But the writing is great and humorous to boot. Last has done a thorough job explaining very disparate issues at play in why fewer and fewer people are having babies.

This is a very interesting, easy to read book, that those who have the "world is overpopulated" bee in their bonnet, should read. It explains in simple language the principles of demographics, and how women who do not have enough babies determine the future populations of their country. Demographics is a freight train. Read this book.

Provocative book. Population control advocates will hate it and they will refuse to actually deal with the facts