3 ms·
> and when that ends there will be a world of hurt. First world countries' with shrinking populations aren't falling apart. Sure places like Japan, Italy, and
by manfredo 8y ago
> and when that ends there will be a world of hurt.
First world countries' with shrinking populations aren't falling apart. Sure places like Japan, Italy, and Spain have economic troubles associated with a growing retirement population, and shrinking workforce. But they're still pretty good places to live in.
While global growth would decline, I'm dubious of the claim that per-capita wealth would go down. With the same pool of resources spread across fewer people, the opposite seems likely. The labor force would reduce in size, too, so manufactured goods and services may not see their prices go down. But things that are zero-sum like natural resources, real-estate, etc. should drop in cost as fewer people are competing for them.
- Gibbon1 8y agoI take the argument that from an economists view point negative population growth is a very bad thing indeed. But from an individuals point of view actually not. Because the economist only cares about total 'GDP' and is absolutely uninterested in quality of life. Because quality of life can't be monetized. From an individuals point of view lower population means fix resources are spread less thinly. There is less competition for jobs so you can command a large share of the pie.
- bodas 8y agoThere may be less competition for jobs but when you're elderly there's more competition for people to take care of you.
- toasterlovin 8y agoOld people have resources, though, so NBD. Reasonable societal arrangements should favor new families at the expense of old folks.
- Gibbon1 8y agoOld people often don't use that many resources either at least while they are in good health. Most of the costs are associated with the last year or two of life. SO that expense is already committed to when they born.