Declining fertility rates have been in the news a lot lately, and with good reason. Some countries, such as South Korea, have seen massive declines in fertility rates, and they face huge social problems and population decline resulting from these declining rates. But does the United States face the same problem?
To be clear, fertility rates are down in the US. Using the most common measure, the total fertility rate, births per woman in the US fell from a peak of over 3.5 births at the peak of the Baby Boom in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to around 2 births per woman in the 1990s and 2000s, and fell further to 1.6 births in 2023 (note: it had been around 2 births in the 1930s as well — the Baby Boom was a very real).
But the total fertility rate, or the number of births per woman of child-bearing age (usually 15-49) in a particular year is not a perfect measure. As Saloni Dattani clearly explains, if the timing of births is changing, this can make the TFR temporarily fluctuate. If women on average are delaying births to a later age, the TFR will fall initially even if women end up having the exact same number of children.
An alternative measure suggested by Dattani is the completed cohort fertility rate. This measure looks at the total number of children that women from a particular birth year in a country have throughout their child-bearing years. This rate also shows a decline for the US, but it is much more gradual: for women born in the 1930s (who would eventually become mothers during the Baby Boom), they peaked at about 3.25 births per woman, which declined to right at about 2.0 births in the 1950s (the Baby Boomers themselves), and has gradually risen since then to about 2.20 for women born in the early 1970s.
How does the US completed cohort fertility rate compare with other countries?
Even before Elon Musk gutted X’s content moderation, James Bailey was tired of the shouting. “It’s like a cursed artifact that gives you great power to keep up with what’s going on, but at the cost of subtly corrupting your soul,” said the 38-year-old Providence College economics professor.
He retreated. This year, he realized he was spending five to 10 minutes a day on a site he used to ignore.
The WSJ reporter contacted me after seeing my previous post about LinkedIn here, explaining how I think LinkedIn has improved as a way to share and read articles, and was always good as a way to keep up with former students. Just in the short time since the WSJ article came out, I finally used LinkedIn for one of its official purposes, hiring, where it worked wonders helping to fill a last-minute vacancy.
If you don’t trust me or the WSJ to identify the hot social network, lets see what the actual cool kids are up to
One of the major goals of the new Trump administration, particularly the DOGE unit, was to shrink the size of the federal government’s budget. Did they achieve this goal?
Last spring both my co-blogger Zachary and I pointed to a tool from the Brookings Institution to track federal spending, pulling in data directly from the US Treasury in a convenient format. Back in March I said “this will be a useful tool to follow going forward.” Now we have a full year of spending data for 2025.
When we look at total spending for Calendar Year 2025, it was about $318 billion higher than 2024, or about 4 percent higher. So, it seems that by that measure, the cuts that the Trump administration made were too small to overcome the other areas that grew.
But…
It may be more useful to remove some spending from the equation. In particular, entitlement programs and interest spending are very large spending categories that aren’t subject to the annual budgeting process. Of course, any program is ultimately under the control of Congress, so it’s a little bit of a cheat to remove Social Security and Medicare, but those programs are on autopilot with respect to the annual federal budget process. They are worth talking about, but they are probably worth talking about separately (especially because they have their own funding mechanisms). And interest on the debt isn’t something a President can control directly: it can only be reduced in future years by closing the budget gap today.
Removing those programs — which constitute about $4.8 trillion of the $7.9 trillion in 2025 spending (so a lot!) — gives you this chart (note: figures have been slightly updated with more complete data since I originally posted this chart):
Federal spending by this measure was about $85 Billion lower in 2025 than the prior year, or about 5 percent. And that’s in nominal terms: it is an even bigger cut if we adjust for inflation. Notice too that the pattern fits what we might expect: spending was slightly higher in the first half of the year (before any Trump changes could have had much of an effect), almost exactly equal for most of the second half, and then slightly below once we get to November and December (after the Deferred Resignation Program layoffs in October). If we ignore the first two months of the year (when it would have been really hard for Trump to have an effect), the drop in spending is about 8 percent.
What were the biggest cuts that led to the $85 billion drop? Keep in mind that some programs increased spending, such as military spending, so there are more than $85 billion in cuts. Using the Daily Treasury Statement categories, here are the big ones:
Federal Financing Bank (Treasury): $59 billion
Department of Education: $46.8 billion
USAID: $30.2 billion
EPA: $17 billion (though EPA seems to have gone on a spending binge at the end of 2024. Compared with 2023, the first Trump year was 50% higher!)
Federal Employee Insurance Payment (OPM): $16.3 billion
Those are all the programs I could find that declined by at least $1 billion, totaling a little over $200 billion. There were some other highly salient cuts that were under a billion dollars (such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was completely eliminated). Looking at that list I don’t think there is an easy way to sum up a “theme,” but I think the real theme is that if the Trump administration wants 2026 discretionary spending to be even lower than 2025, they will really need some major action from Congress. These cuts are mostly low-hanging fruit, and some are long-running goals of the GOP (such as Dept. of Education, foreign aid, and public television).
Of course, to really get federal spending under control, Congress will have to tackle entitlement reform and shrink the budget deficit to lower interest costs. Social Security, Medicare, and interest payments — the bulk of federal spending, over 60% of the total — increase by 9% in 2025. Again, it was probably unreasonable to expect Trump and Congress to have done anything major with them in a single year, but something must be done soon: the Social Security Old Age trust fund will be depleted in about 8 years, and the Medicare Part A trust fund will be depleted in about 10 years.
Have you ever looked up and wondered where the time went? One moment you’re living your life, and the next moment you realize that you’ve just lost time that you’ll never get back? That’s what happened to Japan’s economy at the turn of the century in an episode that’s known as ‘the lost decades’. It was a period of slow or null economic growth. Economists differ with their explanations. One cause was the prevalence of ‘zombie firms’.
Japan’s Economy
Japan had a current account surplus from 1980-2020, which means that they had more savings than they effectively utilized domestically. Metaphorically, they were so full of savings that they exhausted productive domestic investment opportunities and their savings spilled out into other counties in the form of foreign investments. This was driven by high household savings and slow growth in domestic investment demand. The result was the Japanese firms had easy access to credit. Maybe a little too easy…
Private corporate debt ballooned throughout the 1980s. That’s not intrinsically a problem. In the 1990s, households began saving somewhat less, and most firms began to drastically deleverage… But not all firms. The net effect of the mass deleveraging was that interest rates fell. The firms that remained in debt were the ones that risked insolvency. Less productive firms had slim profits and their Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) was slim. So slim, that they couldn’t pay their debts. Faced with the prospect of insolvency, firms did what was sensible. They refinanced at the lower interest rates. Firms went to their banks and to bond markets and rolled over their debt, which they couldn’t afford, and replaced it with debt that had a lower interest rate. This occurred across industries, but especially in non-tradable goods and services that were insulated from international competition. Crisis averted.
Except this process of refinancing, while avoiding acute defaults and a potential financial crises, ensured that the less productive firms would survive. Not exactly failing and not exactly thriving, they could sort of just hold on to something that looks like life. Well, high debt and low profits aren’t much of a life for a firm. It’s more like being undead – like a zombie. Between 1991 and 1996, the share of non-finance firm assets held by zombie firms ballooned from 3% to 16%. The run-up differed by industry: Manufacturing zombie assets rose from 2% to 12%, from 5% to 33% in real estate, and from 11% to 39% in services. These zombie firms linger on, tying up valuable resources with low-productivity activities and drag on the economy.
China’s Economy
I’m not prone to China hysteria generally. However, I do have uncertainty about the plans and actions of the Chinese government because I don’t know that domestic economic welfare is its priority. That makes forecasting more political and less economic and outside my expertise. Regardless, the Chinese economy is a constraint on the government, whether they like it or not. And there are some echoes of the Japanese economy’s lost decades.
Venezuela held an election this week; President Maduro says he won, while the opposition and independent observers say he lost. Disputed elections like this are fairly common across the world, but where Venezuela really stands out is not how people vote at the ballot box- it is how they vote with their feet.
Reuters notes that “A Maduro win could spur more migration from Venezuela, once the continent’s wealthiest country, which in recent years has seen a third of its population leave.”
This makes Venezuela the largestrefugee crisis in the history of the Americas, and depending on how you count the partition of India, perhaps the largest refugee crisis in human history that was not triggered by an invasion or civil war.
Instead, it has been triggered by the Maduro regime choosing terrible policies that have needlessly and dramatically impoverished the country
Plus some foreshadowing:
I hope that the Venezuelan government will soon come to represent the will of its people. I’m not sure how that is likely to happen, though I guess positive change is mostly likely to come from Venezuelans themselves (perhaps with help from Colombia and Brazil); when the US tries to play a bigger role we often make things worse. But what has happened in Venezuela for the past 10 years is clearly much worse than the “normal” bad economic policies and even democratic backsliding that we see elsewhere.
Here’s an update on the chart I shared then, showing that the diaspora has continued to swell:
I hope that Venezuela will soon become the sort of country people don’t want to flee. I don’t necessarily expect that it will, but it’s not now a crazy hope:
With the arrest of Venezuelan President Maduro, the US is potentially attempting to remake the institutions of yet another country. I say potentially because, as of now, all that has happened is that Maduro was removed. His VP stepped in to replace him, and it appears that, for now, the rest of the structure of government is in place.
Nonetheless, any time the US intervenes in the affairs of another country, it brings back the old debates about regime change, nation building, exporting democracy, etc. Many want to discuss the legal and moral implications of these actions — and these are certainly worth discussing! — but as social scientists we should also ask “does it work?”
For example, one excellent paper on regime change via CIA covert intervention is from Absher, Grier, and Grier. They look at five cases during the Cold War in Latin America of CIA-sponsored regime change, and find moderate declines in income and large declines in democratic institutions. Not a good case for regime change and exporting democracy!
But what if we look at more recent interventions — post-Cold War — and look at direct military interventions by the US, rather than covert CIA operations or indirect funding of factions within a country. This is more in line with what might be happening in Venezuela right now (if regime change is ultimately what the US military pushes for). Using a list from Chris Coyne’s book After War (table 1.1) as a starting point for the relevant cases, and then using data from the V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index, we have seven cases since 1990 to examine (note: I have added Libya to Coyne’s list, which I believe is the only new addition of explicit military intervention since he created the list):
The first thing you might notice is that relevant to their starting position (pre-US military intervention), all except one of these countries saw improvements in their V-Dem Liberal Democracy Score after 25 years (or whatever the end point is for those more recent than 25 years). Some of the improvements — such as Libya, Somalia, and Iraq — are quite small, around 0.1 points on the 1-point scale. But other improvements — especially Kosovo and Bosnia — are quite large, around 0.3 points on the 1-point scale.
The one decline is Afghanistan, though you will note that during the occupation (which lasted a very, very long time, until 2021) their liberal democracy score did improve slightly, about as much as Iraq. I should also note that if we didn’t use my 25-year cut-off, Haiti would also have slipped back to roughly where they were in 1993, with a large decline happening since 2020.
For reference on this scale: the US scores 0.75 in 2024, the best scoring country is Denmark with 0.88, the World average is 0.37 (or 0.29 weighted by population), and the European average is 0.62 (or 0.56 weighted by population).
So while the improvements in Kosovo and Bosnia are impressive, they still fall below the average score in Europe. And those examples point to another problem with my simple analysis: we don’t have the counterfactual of what their score would be without US intervention. That kind of sophisticated analysis is what the above-mentioned Absher paper does (using synthetic control), but it’s more than I can do in a short blog post. Nonetheless, we should note that while we can’t say that US intervention caused these improvements, things didn’t get worse in most countries (as many critics of intervention assume always happens) — Afghanistan being the notable exception after the US ended the occupation.
Now that I’ve got the causation caveat out of the way, we should note a few more limitations of my analysis. First, perhaps the V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index isn’t the best one to use. Our World in Data has seven democratic measurement sets to choose from, and even from V-Dem there are others we could have used. I think Liberal Democracy best captures what we are usually talking about in terms of “does it work?” but you could use another measure. However, glancing through the other available measures, such as Polity, I don’t think the picture would be radically different with another measure of liberal democracy. 25 years is also somewhat arbitrary of a cut-off, though in Coyne’s book he uses 20 years, so I’m going beyond that.
Finally, I want to stress even more than on the causation point: none of these improvements mean the intervention passes a cost-benefit test. There was much destruction of lives and property in all of these cases, the use of US tax dollars, and some other harms to the US and international law (e.g., restrictions of civil liberties in the US from the War on Terror). I do not want to suggest that this means the interventions were worth the cost, merely that they did not fail on this one measure of improving democracy. It is also not a prediction that future interventions, such as in Venezuela, will succeed. Instead, I wrote this post because it goes against my priors (I would not have guessed improvements in 6/7 cases).
Last January I shared a roundup of forecasts for the year from markets and professional economists. Were they any good? Here was their prediction for the US economy:
WSJ’s survey of economists reports that inflation expectations for 2025 were around 2% before the election, but are closer to 3% now. Their economists expect GDP growth slowing to 2%, unemployment ticking up slightly but staying in the low 4% range, with no recession. The basic message that 2025 will be a typical year for the US macroeconomy, but with inflation being slightly elevated, perhaps due to tariffs.
The verdicts (based on current data, which isn’t yet final for all of 2025):
Inflation: Nailed it exactly (2.7%)
GDP: We’re still waiting on Q4, but 2025 as a whole is on track to be a bit above the 2.0% forecast.
Unemployment: 4.6% as of November 2025, a bit above the 4.3% forecast
Recession: Didn’t happen, making the 22% chance forecast look fine
So the professional forecasters were probably a bit low on GDP and unemployment, but overall I’d say they had a good year. What about prediction markets?
For those who hope for DOGE to eliminate trillions in waste, or those who fear brutal austerity, the message from markets is that the huge deficits will continue, with the federal debt likely climbing to over $38 trillion by the end of the year. This is one reason markets see a 40% chance that the US credit rating gets downgraded this year.
While the US has only a 22% chance of a recession, China is currently at 48%, Britain at 80%, and Germany at 91%. The Fed probably cuts rates twice to around 4.0%.
Deficits: Nailed it, the federal debt is currently around $38.4 trillion.
US Credit Downgrade: It’s hard to score a prediction of a 40% chance of a binary event happening, but in any case Moodys downgraded the US’ credit rating in May, so that all three major agencies now rate it as not perfect.
The Fed: Cut rates a bit more than expected.
Foreign Recessions: China and Britain avoided recessions. Germany had a recession by the technical definition of Kalshi’s market, but not really in practice (FRED shows -0.2% Real GDP growth in Q2 followed by 0.00000% growth in Q3). Britain avoiding recession when markets showed an 80% chance was the biggest miss among the forecasts I highlighted.
Overall though, I’d say forecasters did fairly well in predicting how 2025 turned out, in spite of curveballs like the April tariff shock.
If you think the forecasters are no good and you can do better, you have more options than ever. Prediction markets are getting more questions and more liquidity if you’re up for putting your money where your mouth is; if you don’t want to put your own money at risk, there are forecastingcontests with prizes for predicting 2026.
By almost any measure, 2025 was a great year for the United States.
Despite inflation remaining elevated and the damage from new tariffs, the economy did well. Inflation-adjusted median earnings are higher than a year ago, though only by about 1.3%. While most prices are still rising, one bright spot for affordability is that home prices are falling in much of the country (according to Zillow estimates).
The unemployment rate did tick up slightly, from 4.2% last November to 4.6% currently. This is definitely an indicator to watch over the next few months, but it is still well below average.
But even outside of the economy, there is plenty of good news in the data. Crime rates are plummeting. The murder rate fell something like 20%, as well as every major category of crime (violent crime overall is down 10%). This are some of the largest one-year drops in crime the US has ever seen.
Homicides aren’t the only category of deaths that are falling in 2025. For most categories of death as tracked by the CDC, there is a long lag (6 months or more) before all of the deaths are categorized. So we can’t look at complete 2025 data yet. For example, drug overdoses have increased massively in recent years, especially during the pandemic. But after plateauing in 2021-23, drug ODs started falling in 2024 and have continued to fall in early 2025. For the 12 months ending in April 2025, drug OD deaths were 26% lower than the prior 12 months. If we look at just the first 5 months of the year, 2024 was 20% lower than 2023, and 2025 was another 20% lower than 2024. For the first five months of 2025, ODs are basically back down to the same level as 2018 and 2019. Motor vehicle deaths also increased during the pandemic, but they are down 8% in the first half of 2025, essentially back down to 2018-19 levels.
Was it all good news? No, you can certainly find some data to be pessimistic about. For example, despite the efforts of DOGE and other attempts to cut federal government spending, over $2 trillion was added to the national debt in 2025, up 6 percent from the end of 2024 and surpassing $38 trillion. And as I mentioned above with the unemployment rate, there is some evidence the labor market may be weakening.
Not all is rosy as we head into 2026, but 2025 was a year filled with many positive trends on the economic front and in society more generally. May your new year be prosperous and healthy!
In aggregate, consumer spending on different broad categories of goods is relatively stable. The year 2019 feels like forever ago – and it was more than half a decade ago. But since then we’ve been hit by a pandemic and an AI shock and a trade war, and tariffs, and… plenty. We live in different times. Except, broadly, consumers are spending their money much as they did six years ago. Let’s compare some data from the 2nd quarter of 2019 and 2025.
First the Spending
Consumption spending is categorized in the below table.
If total consumption spending (not inflation-adjusted) is 100%, then how has the allocation of spending changed? Below is a graph comparing each consumption component’s 2019 share versus 2025. The dotted line denotes an identical share. I haven’t labeled the categories because, suffice it to say, that spending shares are little different. None is more than one percentage point different.
The below figure displays the spending share difference. We’re spending less of our consumption on gasoline and the like, recreational services, and clothing. Surprisingly, we’re also spending less on healthcare and food for off-premises consumption (non-restaurants). However, we’re spending a greater share on housing, recreational goods, food services for on-premises consumption (restaurants).
BLS is slowly (actually, it probably feels very quick for those working on it!) catching up on data releases that were delayed during the federal government shutdown. This week, we saw the release of the November jobs report, which also includes data from October, even though there was no separate release for October. Well, kinda.
For the household survey (which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, among many other measures of the labor market), there is no October report. Because there is no data to be collected. Look at Table A in the employment situation report, and you will see no data in the column for October 2025. Look at the FRED page for the unemployment rate, and you will notice a gap in October. As I wrote a few weeks ago, this is not the end of the world, but it is rather sad for a gap to show up in a series that consistently ran for 933 months back to 1948.
So what is in the jobs report? Lots of new information. A few related areas that have gotten a lot of attention this week are the changes in federal government employment vs. private sector employment, and the changes in native-born vs. foreign-born employment.
Economist Writing Every Day 