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’s not inherently or objectively bad. But some societies are structured around expected growth, and if the growth stagnates or shrinks, then the economy colapses.
For instance in the US, a declining population would mean declining demand and declining output. The housing market would shrink, so fewer houses would need to be build, so construction companies would go out of business. Investments that were made expecting continued growth would fail, such as Social Security (and many stocks). It’s expected that individuals will, on average, produce more than they consume. So if the population drops, then production falls by a greater amount.
There are economic models that don’t rely on continued growth, but they aren’t attractive to the capitalist mindset. Finding an equilibrium is all well and good until someone in power decides that they want to use available resources to get richer.
Latest Answers