I’d say yes and no. The strain on the planet would lessen for sure. But then we have the dependency ratio, meaning the amount of people in work related to those out of work, like children, the elderly, disabled etc.
This are getting worse in every European country. More babies won’t fix it, at least not in the short term but it’ll lessen the impact in about 20 years.
To fix the dependency ratio you either drasticly reduce the welfare state, increase the retirement age, raise taxes, or accept a lot of immigrants. Any of those options appealing to the general public you think?
You do need to care for the elderly, but you also need to care for young people. Schools, kindergartens, universities and so forth cost a lot as well. As long as the life expectancy and fertility rate are stable, the population ends up with a stable dependency ratio. A below replacement fertility rate, just means that the population ends up shrinking.
As for funding the welfare state, the problem is GDP per capita. As long as that is stable in real terms, the problem becomes distributing the wealth. There are actually some good things in terms of GDP per capita with a shrinking population. Namely we still inherit the assets from previous generations. We can choose to the best housing, factories, infrastructure and so forth. Not only that, but we still have innovation, so a lot of our economies are still growing.
For Germany for example current UN predictions are at 30% of the population being retired starting around 2035 and until pretty much the end of the century. Currently it is 23%, so the impact is happening today. That is about what Japan has right now.
Or increase taxes on the rich’s assets (including houses) to fund the silver sunami (i.e. the large amount of boomers retiring all at once) and therefore encourage more of the value generated to go to the worker’s wages. Then you don’t have to worry as much about the welfare state because income tax revenues increase, the worker’s private pensions also increase, more economic activity happens because more people have money in their pockets, and the economy grows.
Either that or work more people to death to keep expanding the current wealth inequality and hope the population keeps getting distracted with culture wars and fascism.
Either that or work more people to death to keep expanding the current wealth inequality and hope the population keeps getting distracted with culture wars and fascism.
As we in Germany say: “Some of these answers would unsettle the population.”
I’d say yes and no. The strain on the planet would lessen for sure. But then we have the dependency ratio, meaning the amount of people in work related to those out of work, like children, the elderly, disabled etc.
This are getting worse in every European country. More babies won’t fix it, at least not in the short term but it’ll lessen the impact in about 20 years.
To fix the dependency ratio you either drasticly reduce the welfare state, increase the retirement age, raise taxes, or accept a lot of immigrants. Any of those options appealing to the general public you think?
You do need to care for the elderly, but you also need to care for young people. Schools, kindergartens, universities and so forth cost a lot as well. As long as the life expectancy and fertility rate are stable, the population ends up with a stable dependency ratio. A below replacement fertility rate, just means that the population ends up shrinking.
As for funding the welfare state, the problem is GDP per capita. As long as that is stable in real terms, the problem becomes distributing the wealth. There are actually some good things in terms of GDP per capita with a shrinking population. Namely we still inherit the assets from previous generations. We can choose to the best housing, factories, infrastructure and so forth. Not only that, but we still have innovation, so a lot of our economies are still growing.
For Germany for example current UN predictions are at 30% of the population being retired starting around 2035 and until pretty much the end of the century. Currently it is 23%, so the impact is happening today. That is about what Japan has right now.
Or increase taxes on the rich’s assets (including houses) to fund the silver sunami (i.e. the large amount of boomers retiring all at once) and therefore encourage more of the value generated to go to the worker’s wages. Then you don’t have to worry as much about the welfare state because income tax revenues increase, the worker’s private pensions also increase, more economic activity happens because more people have money in their pockets, and the economy grows.
Either that or work more people to death to keep expanding the current wealth inequality and hope the population keeps getting distracted with culture wars and fascism.
As we in Germany say: “Some of these answers would unsettle the population.”