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
Well for the united states at least. As boomers continue to retire the non working population becomes much larger than the working population. Retirees depend on Medicare and social security, both of which will be fucked soon as there aren’t enough working people to fund them. It’s very possible (maybe even likely) that anyone in a generation below the boomers will not have any access to these programs as they may no longer exist
A declining population is great for the environment and for resources conservation but absolutely terrible for the economic health of the country and gives a bleak outlook for those working and those who have yet to enter the workforce.
Edit: and people are living longer. Social security and Medicare weren’t meant to support people for as long as they are now having to.
Latest Answers