8 ms·

But is that a bad thing? and I'm not just speaking about America, the entire world I believe there's a decline in Japan's & China's birth rate as well.

raducu 7y ago
In economic terms I don't think it can be good.
- alunchbox 7y ago
  I suppose, but the isn't there more "pros" vs "cons" with a bit smaller population? currently we're sitting close to 7 billion, would (snap) 3.5 billion be enough to sustain economic growth? I see someone mentioned population growth is the safety net for once people get older the younger generation pays into the older population retirement. There's an issue with that thought, won't it be unsustainable after the population reaches a certain threshold?
  - raducu 7y ago
    I'm worried about the shocks, not about the decline itself. I mean wouldn't it be better if the changes were more gradual?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > I'm worried about the shocks, not about the decline itself. Yeah, in the long term, we’re all dead. The path is all that matters, not the steady end state.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    Certainly one day the system will be unsustainable. You can sustain growth for a little while with a stable population by increasing consumption, but once the succeeding generations have the same number of buyers or fewer, it becomes very challenging to find new dollars to buy more goods. As to your question about the snap... 3.5 billion would be an economic disaster and because people have fewer children it would take forever to rebuild that wealth.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There's an issue with that thought, won't it be unsustainable after the population reaches a certain threshold? Perhaps, but the hard limits set by physics are probably ludicrously high, and the soft limit set by physical and social technology can, in theory, improve alongaide population until they hit the hard limits.
rpiguy 7y ago
From an ecological perspective not a bad thing. From a national economy perspective, it is a very bad thing for two reasons. Capitalism requires an expansion of consumption to grow. Even in a recession/depression the old natural birth rate guaranteed that there would be a larger body of workers and consumers to grow the economy when you came out of it. Secondly, the elderly require more care (Social Security, Medicare) while also paying lower taxes mostly because of lower earnings. Our social support systems are funded primarily on the assumption that there will always be more young people than old paying into the system to support it. Once countries stop growing in population the weight of the old really takes its toll on growth. Export oriented countries can get away with it for a little longer because the populations growing in other countries will support their economies for a while. Japan would otherwise have collapsed by now under the weight of a shrinking population. Aside from a small core of anti-immigration extremists in the US, most people on the right and left, including our very Orange President, are for legal immigration, which is the best way to stave off population decline.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  >Once countries stop growing in population the weight of the old really takes its toll on growth. This is a fallacy. The ratio of elderly is fixed; even if it grows somewhat it can't grow indefinitely. Meanwhile productivity usually grows exponentially. Therefore the elderly population cannot be a drag on growth.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    Interesting theory that is contrary to any actual observable evidence. Look at any country with an aging and shrinking population.
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      Correlation is not causation. Countries with aging populations are ones that have undergone the demographic transition. They have low growth because they are already highly developed and the opportunity for increasing productivity is low, not because they have too many old people.
pg_bot 7y ago
Based on how we've set up social security, yes this is a problem.

raducu 7y ago

In economic terms I don't think it can be good.

alunchbox 7y ago
I suppose, but the isn't there more "pros" vs "cons" with a bit smaller population? currently we're sitting close to 7 billion, would (snap) 3.5 billion be enough to sustain economic growth? I see someone mentioned population growth is the safety net for once people get older the younger generation pays into the older population retirement. There's an issue with that thought, won't it be unsustainable after the population reaches a certain threshold?
- raducu 7y ago
  I'm worried about the shocks, not about the decline itself. I mean wouldn't it be better if the changes were more gradual?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I'm worried about the shocks, not about the decline itself. Yeah, in the long term, we’re all dead. The path is all that matters, not the steady end state.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Certainly one day the system will be unsustainable. You can sustain growth for a little while with a stable population by increasing consumption, but once the succeeding generations have the same number of buyers or fewer, it becomes very challenging to find new dollars to buy more goods. As to your question about the snap... 3.5 billion would be an economic disaster and because people have fewer children it would take forever to rebuild that wealth.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There's an issue with that thought, won't it be unsustainable after the population reaches a certain threshold? Perhaps, but the hard limits set by physics are probably ludicrously high, and the soft limit set by physical and social technology can, in theory, improve alongaide population until they hit the hard limits.

rpiguy 7y ago

From an ecological perspective not a bad thing. From a national economy perspective, it is a very bad thing for two reasons. Capitalism requires an expansion of consumption to grow. Even in a recession/depression the old natural birth rate guaranteed that there would be a larger body of workers and consumers to grow the economy when you came out of it. Secondly, the elderly require more care (Social Security, Medicare) while also paying lower taxes mostly because of lower earnings. Our social support systems are funded primarily on the assumption that there will always be more young people than old paying into the system to support it. Once countries stop growing in population the weight of the old really takes its toll on growth. Export oriented countries can get away with it for a little longer because the populations growing in other countries will support their economies for a while. Japan would otherwise have collapsed by now under the weight of a shrinking population. Aside from a small core of anti-immigration extremists in the US, most people on the right and left, including our very Orange President, are for legal immigration, which is the best way to stave off population decline.

astazangasta 7y ago
>Once countries stop growing in population the weight of the old really takes its toll on growth. This is a fallacy. The ratio of elderly is fixed; even if it grows somewhat it can't grow indefinitely. Meanwhile productivity usually grows exponentially. Therefore the elderly population cannot be a drag on growth.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Interesting theory that is contrary to any actual observable evidence. Look at any country with an aging and shrinking population.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    Correlation is not causation. Countries with aging populations are ones that have undergone the demographic transition. They have low growth because they are already highly developed and the opportunity for increasing productivity is low, not because they have too many old people.

pg_bot 7y ago

Based on how we've set up social security, yes this is a problem.