Acemoglu's new paper claims low fertility raises living standards through automation, but the author argues the evidence is weak and contradicts Acemoglu's own research.

The Economist recently criticized economics Nobel laureate Acemoglu, and the author got named too. The author admits to regularly critiquing Acemoglu but argues this 'speaking truth to power' is good for economics.

The target of this critique is Acemoglu's 2026 paper on low fertility.

1. Low fertility is not a bad thing?

The paper makes a bold claim: lower birth rates actually make GDP and wages grow faster. Because with fewer workers, firms are forced to use automation to replace labor, thereby boosting productivity.

The author thinks there is some sense to this mechanism, but disagrees: fewer people means not only fewer workers, but also fewer consumers. Without demand, why would firms buy machines?

2. Logic is self-contradictory

More damning, Acemoglu's own previous research says robots and AI will lower wages and reduce productivity. If so, how can automation compensate for an aging population?

On one hand 'don't fear low fertility, automation will save us,' on the other 'beware automation, it will harm workers' — isn't that contradictory?

3. Evidence is shaky

The paper's key results lose significance once control variables like education and urbanization are added. The author suspects the real driving factor is not birth rate but things like 'talent moving to coastal cities.'

Moreover, the paper only uses data from 1940 to 1970 with mild population changes, which cannot predict the future of extreme low fertility seen in Korea and Japan today.

In short, the author remains worried about human shrinkage and believes readers should keep worrying.