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
It shouldnt be. There are too many people consuming too much of the planet resources. We need to scale back in the next 100 years and share the planet more with other species, have more green space and share the planet.
The economic system needs to change to be in balance with nature.
Latest Answers