6 ms·
> At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five l
by ohazi 7y ago
> At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.
(emphasis mine)
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
Fuck the world economy, then. We're not going back to '60s.
- macspoofing 7y ago>Fuck the world economy, then. You like your pension? Because pensions need an ever-growing population.
- bpodgursky 7y agoOr healthcare, unless you have a really quick and cheap plan for home-care nursebots.
- wahern 7y agoJapan is already on top of it! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/06/japan-robots-will-care-for-80-of-elderly-by-2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/06/japan-robots-w... Also, prison as elderly care: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- makerofspoons 7y agoThe pension ponzi scheme has to end sometime. Whether the music stops when it's my turn, yours, or today's children it simply isn't possible to grow the number of people paying in forever.
- zip1234 7y agoSame with unending growth of suburbs. Paving the world and less people to pay for the pavement maintenance.
- 1-6 7y agoImmigrants pay for all of it, pensions and civil engineering.
- AstralStorm 7y agoNot when there's no space for them to live in, or jobs to work. That's still far in the future though.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- m0zg 7y agoFact of the matter is: you're going to have to support the old, less able people, whether you want it or not. You don't get to just not pay for it, not at any kind of a macro scale. OTOH if the population isn't growing and economy is contracting as a result, you could find yourself paying a lot more than you do now. Like, potentially, several times the amount.
- finnh 7y agoOr really good automation.
- ohazi 7y agoI don't have one and don't expect one. Pensions, like infinite population growth, aren't sustainable. Most people no longer spend their entire career at a single company, so the concept doesn't even make much sense anymore. If you're referring to a government pension like social security rather than a company sponsored pension, that can and should be made sustainable, unlike the borrow-from-the-future mess that we have today.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoIf you don't have a pension, I presume you have retirement savings. It's the same pyramid scheme. You're expecting future generations to take care of you when you get old. You're presuming that the 2019 dollars you save now will give you a claim on the resources of 2049. But if there are no working age people in 2049 then there's nobody to take care of you so your 2019 dollars are worthless. In other words if demand for caregivers greatly exceeds supply inflation is going to destroy your savings.
- ohazi 7y agoI have retirement savings, yes. I'm lucky that I enjoy the work that I do, and expect to continue doing this kind of work in some capacity for as long as I'm able. I expect to have to pay for things in 2049 just like everybody else. I anticipate that dollars saved today won't go as far in 2049, and so I save more than I think I'll need. If higher than expected inflation or lack of caregiver supply is a problem, then we'll have to find a way to deal with it. If my dollars won't go as far as I think they will, well that's tough cookies for me, but that's not any different from how the world works today too. You can't anticipate everything. But suggesting that the root cause of this problem is women not having enough babies, and insinuating that things would be oh so much easier if we could just go back to how things were in the '60s where half the population was disenfranchised (as this article does) -- is utter lunacy. That's not happening. That shouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, it wouldn't actually fix the problem.
- shrimp_emoji 7y ago
- ChrisLomont 7y ago>Because pensions need an ever-growing population. Why? If a group of people paid into a retirement fund enough to sustain them all, and called it a pension, then there is no need for growth. The problem is not pensions; it's underfunded pensions. There's no reason they cannot work.
- lonelappde 7y agoInflation. It does not matter how much money is in your account if there is nothing to buy.
- ChrisLomont 7y agoInvestment. Stocks have outpaced inflation since the dawn of time.
- triceratops 7y agoWhy? You only need more productivity than is needed to sustain the entire population to allow people to retire or have pensions. We already have that and productivity will only continue to increase because of technology.
- buboard 7y agopensions didnt exist less than 2 centuries ago
- zachguo 7y agoIf the world economy crashed, we may go back to 40s.
- eadmund 7y agoIf the world economy crashed sufficiently badly, we might go back to the 1840s.