2 ms·

Because someone is going to have to care for an aging population. You can look at Japan for what happens when you have zero or negative population growth.

throwawaysea 7y ago
Again, why does it need to grow? There seem to be people in this thread expecting that unchecked human population growth is a sure sign of progress. It isn't. And our current population levels are also unsustainable.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  Because otherwise the social safety net--Medicare and Social Security included--will collapse. Maybe we shouldn't have those programs structured as they are now. But we do, and a shock to the system will result in unprecedented economic misery and social instability. If we want to talk about how to deal with demographic change, there's an important long-term conversation to be had about preserving the social safety net. But any solution that wants to avoid a potentially-catastrophic economic crisis must have a serious, realistic answer for this. Not building housing is a fundamentally unserious policy, driven by a preference for the suburban lifestyle and the fear of change more than any realistic concerns about sustainability.
topmonk 7y ago
A giant ponzi scheme then? When it finally hits a brick wall, there are going to be that many more people on the earth to suffer the consequences. There has to be another way.
logfromblammo 7y ago
Exactly why student loan debts, insufficient housing, and the gig economy are larger problems than they appear at first glance. Indebted, underemployed people with just a rented bedroom and dysfunctional social safety nets are, for some odd reason, less eager to procreate. If you don't have enough grandkids, there won't be enough able-bodied people around to wipe the drool off your generation's collective chin and push your age cohort's wheelchair out to the common room. That's the real cost of pulling up the ladder after yourself. You break the generational compact by denying opportunities to young folks, and they not only won't take care of you in your sunset years, but they won't even exist to do anything for you at any price.

throwawaysea 7y ago

Again, why does it need to grow? There seem to be people in this thread expecting that unchecked human population growth is a sure sign of progress. It isn't. And our current population levels are also unsustainable.

pcwalton 7y ago
Because otherwise the social safety net--Medicare and Social Security included--will collapse. Maybe we shouldn't have those programs structured as they are now. But we do, and a shock to the system will result in unprecedented economic misery and social instability. If we want to talk about how to deal with demographic change, there's an important long-term conversation to be had about preserving the social safety net. But any solution that wants to avoid a potentially-catastrophic economic crisis must have a serious, realistic answer for this. Not building housing is a fundamentally unserious policy, driven by a preference for the suburban lifestyle and the fear of change more than any realistic concerns about sustainability.

topmonk 7y ago

A giant ponzi scheme then? When it finally hits a brick wall, there are going to be that many more people on the earth to suffer the consequences. There has to be another way.

logfromblammo 7y ago

Exactly why student loan debts, insufficient housing, and the gig economy are larger problems than they appear at first glance. Indebted, underemployed people with just a rented bedroom and dysfunctional social safety nets are, for some odd reason, less eager to procreate. If you don't have enough grandkids, there won't be enough able-bodied people around to wipe the drool off your generation's collective chin and push your age cohort's wheelchair out to the common room. That's the real cost of pulling up the ladder after yourself. You break the generational compact by denying opportunities to young folks, and they not only won't take care of you in your sunset years, but they won't even exist to do anything for you at any price.