9 ms·

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 o

by 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.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      So you are admitting that if a country is highly developed and have undergone a demographic transition they have low growth. You just proved my point, thank you.
      - astazangasta 7y ago
        No. Your point was that low population growth produces a drag on productivity growth because of an aging population. This is wrong; to reiterate, advanced economies have low population growth because they have undergone a demographic transition - i.e., they have gone from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates. This is a result of a number of factors, mostly relating to the increasing rights of women. The effect of this is a higher fraction of elderly in the population. However, growth (per capita) is exponential; the fraction of elderly is fixed. Therefore the fraction of elderly cannot be a drag on growth. The demographic transition is the result of development, which usually brings with it increasing mobility for women and depresses birth rates. Another, independent, effect of development is low growth rates, because a developed economy has less room for productivity growth (i.e., when you give an uneducated person an education and some technology, you can increase their productivity - it's hard to do the same with an educated, tech-savvy person). To sum up: development causes demographic transition causes aging. Development also causes low growth rates. Aging does not cause low growth rates.
asdkhadsj 7y ago
> 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. Isn't this primarily a problem of poor planning? Making the young pay their fair share to ensure stability of that individual for the future seems like the proper course of action. To think of it differently.. I know when I'm old life is going to get expensive. I'm trying hard to make sure I don't end life broke and in a terrible care facility. Why is the government not also thinking like this with regards to how they handle finances? Is it surprising that people get old? Of course this does not help the situation we're in current. Where the old did not properly pay for their own support.
douglaswlance 7y ago
You're assuming that lowering human population would coincide with a lowering of growth. The labor market is increasingly becoming machine-based, rather than human-based. As the number of humans drops, the number of machines grows. We need fewer humans to maintain growth, so dropping birth rates could be a good thing, since machines require less maintenance than humans.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Interesting theory, but in order for economic growth to occur someone has to be there to buy the goods that these machines will be producing. Fewer humans alive to buy goods with fewer jobs equals a shrinking economy, regardless of how the goods are produced. At that point we would probably start looking at other economic systems anyway.
  - douglaswlance 7y ago
    That assumes machines will not consume goods.
dd36 7y ago
Seeking asylum is legal immigration.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  It is within the rights of any nation to deny asylum to asylum seekers as well as to define the criteria that qualify asylum, otherwise anyone who shows up at the border saying "my country is poor and dangerous and I want to live here" could use asylum as a loophole.
  - dd36 7y ago
    Yes, a nation sets its own laws and chooses what treaties it adopts.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
> From a national economy perspective, it is a very bad thing for two reasons. Not necessarily. Per capita metrics are more important that national metrics. I.e. I don't care what the size of the national economy is as long as people as individually getting better off.
snarf21 7y ago
Yes, there will be a drop in growth. More and more jobs will be automated away and soon most jobs will be the government paying people to take care of our elderly. There won't be many other jobs available on the whole.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Capitalism requires an expansion of consumption to grow But aggregate growth isn't important, per capita growth is, and that only requires per capita increases in consumption. Which is actually easier, with fixed resources, with a shrinking population. OTOH, support of an aging population is an issue. On the third hand, for the near term, immigration can handle that for most countries facing that problem. > 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. That's not true; there is a very large group, including “our very Orange President”, that are opposed to immigration in general, and are actively working to reduce the level of legal immigration, and especially targeting the legal immigrants that do the most to contribute to the viability of social support strucutures by paying heavily into payroll tax funded trust funds.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Only about 30% of people want overall immigration decreased according to Gallup and the President wants a merit based immigration system and fewer unskilled immigrants, which is hardly being opposed to immigration. Historically, per capita consumption is more difficult to increase than growing the overall size of the population (and US consumers already lead the world in consumption so I don't see that being a solution for us). It works well for export oriented countries with protectionist policies that promote the growth of a middle class. I am not in favor of population growth, it is just basic capitalism/economics. At some point flat or declining global population will force us to find a better system than the one we have.

by rpiguy 7y ago

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.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    So you are admitting that if a country is highly developed and have undergone a demographic transition they have low growth. You just proved my point, thank you.
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      No. Your point was that low population growth produces a drag on productivity growth because of an aging population. This is wrong; to reiterate, advanced economies have low population growth because they have undergone a demographic transition - i.e., they have gone from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates. This is a result of a number of factors, mostly relating to the increasing rights of women. The effect of this is a higher fraction of elderly in the population. However, growth (per capita) is exponential; the fraction of elderly is fixed. Therefore the fraction of elderly cannot be a drag on growth. The demographic transition is the result of development, which usually brings with it increasing mobility for women and depresses birth rates. Another, independent, effect of development is low growth rates, because a developed economy has less room for productivity growth (i.e., when you give an uneducated person an education and some technology, you can increase their productivity - it's hard to do the same with an educated, tech-savvy person). To sum up: development causes demographic transition causes aging. Development also causes low growth rates. Aging does not cause low growth rates.

asdkhadsj 7y ago

> 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. Isn't this primarily a problem of poor planning? Making the young pay their fair share to ensure stability of that individual for the future seems like the proper course of action. To think of it differently.. I know when I'm old life is going to get expensive. I'm trying hard to make sure I don't end life broke and in a terrible care facility. Why is the government not also thinking like this with regards to how they handle finances? Is it surprising that people get old? Of course this does not help the situation we're in current. Where the old did not properly pay for their own support.

douglaswlance 7y ago

You're assuming that lowering human population would coincide with a lowering of growth. The labor market is increasingly becoming machine-based, rather than human-based. As the number of humans drops, the number of machines grows. We need fewer humans to maintain growth, so dropping birth rates could be a good thing, since machines require less maintenance than humans.

rpiguy 7y ago
Interesting theory, but in order for economic growth to occur someone has to be there to buy the goods that these machines will be producing. Fewer humans alive to buy goods with fewer jobs equals a shrinking economy, regardless of how the goods are produced. At that point we would probably start looking at other economic systems anyway.
- douglaswlance 7y ago
  That assumes machines will not consume goods.

dd36 7y ago

Seeking asylum is legal immigration.

rpiguy 7y ago
It is within the rights of any nation to deny asylum to asylum seekers as well as to define the criteria that qualify asylum, otherwise anyone who shows up at the border saying "my country is poor and dangerous and I want to live here" could use asylum as a loophole.
- dd36 7y ago
  Yes, a nation sets its own laws and chooses what treaties it adopts.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

> From a national economy perspective, it is a very bad thing for two reasons. Not necessarily. Per capita metrics are more important that national metrics. I.e. I don't care what the size of the national economy is as long as people as individually getting better off.

snarf21 7y ago

Yes, there will be a drop in growth. More and more jobs will be automated away and soon most jobs will be the government paying people to take care of our elderly. There won't be many other jobs available on the whole.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Capitalism requires an expansion of consumption to grow But aggregate growth isn't important, per capita growth is, and that only requires per capita increases in consumption. Which is actually easier, with fixed resources, with a shrinking population. OTOH, support of an aging population is an issue. On the third hand, for the near term, immigration can handle that for most countries facing that problem. > 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. That's not true; there is a very large group, including “our very Orange President”, that are opposed to immigration in general, and are actively working to reduce the level of legal immigration, and especially targeting the legal immigrants that do the most to contribute to the viability of social support strucutures by paying heavily into payroll tax funded trust funds.

rpiguy 7y ago
Only about 30% of people want overall immigration decreased according to Gallup and the President wants a merit based immigration system and fewer unskilled immigrants, which is hardly being opposed to immigration. Historically, per capita consumption is more difficult to increase than growing the overall size of the population (and US consumers already lead the world in consumption so I don't see that being a solution for us). It works well for export oriented countries with protectionist policies that promote the growth of a middle class. I am not in favor of population growth, it is just basic capitalism/economics. At some point flat or declining global population will force us to find a better system than the one we have.