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 “decline” isn’t the same across all ages. What you have is the normal effect of technology (improvements in medicine, etc.) that lets people live longer, but in general families decide to have fewer babies.
So what you get is an AGING population. Babies do consume
resources, but adults 18-50 are the primary working force, and fewer babies now means fewer adults in about 20 years or so. So there will be fewer babies, fewer adults, and MORE older people (as everyone ages).
Latest Answers