4 ms·

Re: "demographic dividend" > When more children live, you get one generation that’s relatively big. > Then, when families decide to have fewer children, the n

by piker 9y ago

Re: "demographic dividend" > When more children live, you get one generation that’s relatively big. > Then, when families decide to have fewer children, the next generation is much smaller. > Eventually, a country ends up with relatively more people in the labor force producing economically—and relatively fewer dependents (very old or very young people). What happened to the now old people in the bigger first generation?

matt4077 9y ago
The "eventually" points at a new steady-state, after these changes have settled down: Previous: 2 Old / 4 Adult / 20 children born, of which 10 survive = 3 dependents per adult "1. bigger gen" = 2 Old / 4 Adult / 20 children, all surviving = 5.5 dependent / adult "Next generation" = 4 Old / 20 Adult / 60 children = 3.2 dependent / adult "eventually" = 20 Old / 20 Adult / 20 Children = 2 dependent / adult (Real numbers are better than this b/c productive adulthood is more than 1/3 of life. It's simplified here to make the math easier to follow).
mrlinx 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
oblio 9y ago
The young ones have to eat something and they need proteins. On a more serious note, I assume that they compare the situation with the previous generation. Generation one dependents: 2 parents, 4 grandparent's, 6 kids, let's say. Generation two dependents: 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 2 kids. I'm guessing this is what they mean, maybe I misread it?
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Perhaps a better word than "Eventually" would have been "Temporarily". There's a large gap that a society must cross to go from third-world to developed. Education, infrastructure, technology, culture, and politics, and career changes take time and money, and when you're competing against other nations making the same transition, and others exploiting the system through corruption, black markets, disguised slavery, wealth extraction by foreign corporations, etc. it's very difficult to make the transition. I believe that the assumption is that after making the transition, the resulting society will have sufficient economic excess that it will be able to support the large elderly population and will be better off in the end.
dalbasal 9y ago
Do you mean in terms of demographic pyramid? Lets say that the average number of surviving children per couple is 2, then 4, then 2 again. The children/parents ratio for the 2nd/1st generation is 4/2=2. The next generation is 2/2=1. Assuming that the average number of surviving children was about 2 per couple before all this, then the ratio basically returns to normal. The only abnormal ratio is the large generation compared to the previous one. After the large generation, the population is just bigger. But the gen1/gen2 ratio is normal. The population doesn't shrink back down to pre-boom levels.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
Those are now reaching retirement age, so the current generation will see a lot of their income taxes being spent on making sure the baby boomers have a relatively cushy old age. I just hope there's something left for me in 30-odd years :/.

by piker 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

The "eventually" points at a new steady-state, after these changes have settled down: Previous: 2 Old / 4 Adult / 20 children born, of which 10 survive = 3 dependents per adult "1. bigger gen" = 2 Old / 4 Adult / 20 children, all surviving = 5.5 dependent / adult "Next generation" = 4 Old / 20 Adult / 60 children = 3.2 dependent / adult "eventually" = 20 Old / 20 Adult / 20 Children = 2 dependent / adult (Real numbers are better than this b/c productive adulthood is more than 1/3 of life. It's simplified here to make the math easier to follow).

mrlinx 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

oblio 9y ago

The young ones have to eat something and they need proteins. On a more serious note, I assume that they compare the situation with the previous generation. Generation one dependents: 2 parents, 4 grandparent's, 6 kids, let's say. Generation two dependents: 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 2 kids. I'm guessing this is what they mean, maybe I misread it?

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

Perhaps a better word than "Eventually" would have been "Temporarily". There's a large gap that a society must cross to go from third-world to developed. Education, infrastructure, technology, culture, and politics, and career changes take time and money, and when you're competing against other nations making the same transition, and others exploiting the system through corruption, black markets, disguised slavery, wealth extraction by foreign corporations, etc. it's very difficult to make the transition. I believe that the assumption is that after making the transition, the resulting society will have sufficient economic excess that it will be able to support the large elderly population and will be better off in the end.

dalbasal 9y ago

Do you mean in terms of demographic pyramid? Lets say that the average number of surviving children per couple is 2, then 4, then 2 again. The children/parents ratio for the 2nd/1st generation is 4/2=2. The next generation is 2/2=1. Assuming that the average number of surviving children was about 2 per couple before all this, then the ratio basically returns to normal. The only abnormal ratio is the large generation compared to the previous one. After the large generation, the population is just bigger. But the gen1/gen2 ratio is normal. The population doesn't shrink back down to pre-boom levels.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

Those are now reaching retirement age, so the current generation will see a lot of their income taxes being spent on making sure the baby boomers have a relatively cushy old age. I just hope there's something left for me in 30-odd years :/.