I’ve never understood why a declining population is in itself a bad thing (for individuals).
Everywhere there seems to be labor shortages it’s almost always the low-end jobs that can’t fill vacancies (that’s a good thing for living standards). Plus benefits like less inheritance splitting, greater capital per person (roads, houses, etc.). And at the far extreme, developing countries often have high growth rates and widespread poverty as a result. On the flip side, if I’m an only child and inherit my parent’s house, that is a huge increase to my living standards to never have to carry a mortgage.
The argument usually seems to be that old people consume resources without working, but isn’t that true of both children and the elderly? The elderly need a lot of hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., but kids need teachers, doctors, school bus drivers, universities, daycares, etc. Both groups might pull family members out of the workforce for years to care for them. But the elderly often have their own assets to draw from to pay for some/all of this, whereas kids come into the world with nothing.
What am I missing?
In: Economics
The first thing you’re missing is that the low-end jobs are critical for society. You seem to be under the impression that if they can’t fill them, they just go away and everyone wins because nobody has to do those jobs that’s not how it works. Someone’s gotta take the trash out and flip burgers. If the population declines, we simply don’t have enough labor to do those jobs.
Then there’s the entitlements issue. Retirement plans, whether public or private, rely on the notion that a larger pool of working people give a portion of their paycheck to support a smaller pool of older retired people. If the population decreases, the ratio of working vs. retired starts to tip towards retirees and there aren’t enough workers to subsidize their retirement.
Latest Answers