4 ms·

2 has some options. Increase the number of (young) immigrants. Increase the birthrate (has anywhere managed this?).

tossandthrow 1y ago
Birthrates are problematic as it usually take 20 to 25 years before they pay taxes. And in that time they require a lot of expenses. They talk abiut the squeeze, if Birthrates increase too suddenly - workers would both have to pay for the elderly and the kids.
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  This is the real demographic death trap, and why Taiwan and South Korea are probably past the point of no return. If one generation has a fertility rate of 1 child per woman, the next must have 4 children per woman to undo the demographic change. The people in the “corrective” generation must support their own two elderly parents plus four of their own children. It becomes practically impossible.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    > The people in the “corrective” generation must support their own two elderly parents plus four of their own children. It becomes practically impossible. The country and the individual has the same problem. But it also goes a generation further. There was a link on HN recently which I can’t find. It discussed how we are in an unusual time, where kids can often meet their great grandparents. Previously people died younger, so couldn’t. Now people are having kids at an age where it will be unlikely for them to meet their great grandchildren.
    - gambiting 1y ago
      >>Previously people died younger, so couldn’t I'm not sure that's true - people died younger, sure, but they also had kids much earlier. Even assuming 18 for first child(and it often was earlier than 18), you'd be a great grandparent at the age of 54 - and people have commonly lived that long even in antiquity.
      - lostlogin 1y ago
        Have a look at the graph here - ‘Life expectancy by world region, from 1770 to 2018’ The average lifespans was only 40-something until the 1850-1950 range. I’m sure plenty lived longer, but the average was terrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
        messe 1y ago
        Those figures are heavily skewed by high infant mortality rates.
        rightbyte 1y ago
        Read the "other measures" part of the article. "While the most common age of death in adulthood among modern hunter-gatherers (often taken as a guide to the likely most favourable Paleolithic demographic experience) is estimated to average 72 years,[169] the number dying at that age is dwarfed by those (over a fifth of all infants) dying in the first year of life, and only around a quarter usually survive to the higher age." Etc.
        bethekidyouwant 1y ago
        Yeah, I don’t know why people actually believe everyone died at 40 clearly that that’s not true. You’ve met a 40-year-old, right? Here’s a popular one include all the abortions as deaths and you’ll see that the average age that we live now is also 40
        gambiting 1y ago
        Why would you include abortions too? My wife had a miscarriage at 3 months in, should we include that in stats too?
  - dtech 1y ago
    Getting to a fertility rate of 2.1 will at least mean the problem will end at some point and the population will be stable, altough it will take the better half of a century.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    This is a nice explanation from Kurzgesagt showing precisely why South Korea is completely screwed long term, and why it's impossible to course correct through birth rate alone: https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=3mMFke_Rj6b3jWld https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=3mMFke_Rj6b3jWld
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
spacebanana7 1y ago
Israel is the only developed country which has a sustained positive fertility rate.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  But that’s not an example of a solution - the birth rate is driven by orthodox citizens who don’t participate in mainstream society, so they aren’t going to pay taxes or care for the elderly (outside their own family).
  - spacebanana7 1y ago
    Yeah it’s a pessimistic data point because it’s challenging to replicate Israel’s unique circumstances and also it’s not clear this solution is even good for Israel.
- ImHereToVote 1y ago
  Seems like the US taxpayer should subsidize all countries as much as they subsidize Israel. That would fix it.
  - ido 1y ago
    US economic aid to Israel ended in 2007 (18 years ago). The US since then only provides Israel with military aid (most of which is only allowed to be spent buying US-made goods). It’s more of a subsidy for the US military-industrial complex. Also despite the military aid Israel still spends a much greater share of GDP on its military than most or all other developed countries (so the US isn't subsidising Israel’s unusually high birth rate).
    - arandomusername 1y ago
      > It’s more of a subsidy for the US military-industrial complex. That's a funny way to twist it. US is providing aid to Israel. Billions a year. US also provides indirect aid, through protection or aid to neighbouring countries (e.g Jordan and Egypt) as bribes so they play nice with Israel. And who knows, with the way the Iran thing is panning out, you might be paying a lot more if US decides to bomb Iran on Israel's request
grunder_advice 1y ago
Mormons and Amish have above replacement fertility rates. Millionaires in western countries also have above replacement fertility rates. To me it seems rather obvious: you need both the will and the means to raise 3+ children.
- logicchains 1y ago
  Shouldn't it be the will or the means, not the will and the means, giving how relatively poor the Amish are in financial terms?
  - bombcar 1y ago
    The Amish have the means because their means are not measured in normal dollar amounts. Most of what they have is traded and transacted outside of the dollar economy. In fact, they may majority be of subsistence in which case the entire dollar value of all of their stuff is simply the land.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  I’m not sure it’s about having the “means”, since birth rates were far higher in the past when everybody was much poorer.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    You can solve the means problem by making everyone wealthier or by lowering everyone's expectations. The problem is that "how much it costs to raise children" is dependent on your environment. One group's normal is another's neglectful parenting. The catch-22 is that the people you presumably want to be having more children— educated working professionals— have some of the highest social standards for child rearing.
dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
> Increase the number of (young) immigrants Increase the number of (young female) immigrants

Birthrates are problematic as it usually take 20 to 25 years before they pay taxes. And in that time they require a lot of expenses. They talk abiut the squeeze, if Birthrates increase too suddenly - workers would both have to pay for the elderly and the kids.

spacebanana7 1y ago
This is the real demographic death trap, and why Taiwan and South Korea are probably past the point of no return. If one generation has a fertility rate of 1 child per woman, the next must have 4 children per woman to undo the demographic change. The people in the “corrective” generation must support their own two elderly parents plus four of their own children. It becomes practically impossible.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > The people in the “corrective” generation must support their own two elderly parents plus four of their own children. It becomes practically impossible. The country and the individual has the same problem. But it also goes a generation further. There was a link on HN recently which I can’t find. It discussed how we are in an unusual time, where kids can often meet their great grandparents. Previously people died younger, so couldn’t. Now people are having kids at an age where it will be unlikely for them to meet their great grandchildren.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    >>Previously people died younger, so couldn’t I'm not sure that's true - people died younger, sure, but they also had kids much earlier. Even assuming 18 for first child(and it often was earlier than 18), you'd be a great grandparent at the age of 54 - and people have commonly lived that long even in antiquity.
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Have a look at the graph here - ‘Life expectancy by world region, from 1770 to 2018’ The average lifespans was only 40-something until the 1850-1950 range. I’m sure plenty lived longer, but the average was terrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
      - messe 1y ago
        Those figures are heavily skewed by high infant mortality rates.
      - rightbyte 1y ago
        Read the "other measures" part of the article. "While the most common age of death in adulthood among modern hunter-gatherers (often taken as a guide to the likely most favourable Paleolithic demographic experience) is estimated to average 72 years,[169] the number dying at that age is dwarfed by those (over a fifth of all infants) dying in the first year of life, and only around a quarter usually survive to the higher age." Etc.
      - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
        Yeah, I don’t know why people actually believe everyone died at 40 clearly that that’s not true. You’ve met a 40-year-old, right? Here’s a popular one include all the abortions as deaths and you’ll see that the average age that we live now is also 40
        gambiting 1y ago
        Why would you include abortions too? My wife had a miscarriage at 3 months in, should we include that in stats too?
- dtech 1y ago
  Getting to a fertility rate of 2.1 will at least mean the problem will end at some point and the population will be stable, altough it will take the better half of a century.
- gambiting 1y ago
  This is a nice explanation from Kurzgesagt showing precisely why South Korea is completely screwed long term, and why it's impossible to course correct through birth rate alone: https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=3mMFke_Rj6b3jWld https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=3mMFke_Rj6b3jWld

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

spacebanana7 1y ago

Israel is the only developed country which has a sustained positive fertility rate.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
But that’s not an example of a solution - the birth rate is driven by orthodox citizens who don’t participate in mainstream society, so they aren’t going to pay taxes or care for the elderly (outside their own family).
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  Yeah it’s a pessimistic data point because it’s challenging to replicate Israel’s unique circumstances and also it’s not clear this solution is even good for Israel.
ImHereToVote 1y ago
Seems like the US taxpayer should subsidize all countries as much as they subsidize Israel. That would fix it.
- ido 1y ago
  US economic aid to Israel ended in 2007 (18 years ago). The US since then only provides Israel with military aid (most of which is only allowed to be spent buying US-made goods). It’s more of a subsidy for the US military-industrial complex. Also despite the military aid Israel still spends a much greater share of GDP on its military than most or all other developed countries (so the US isn't subsidising Israel’s unusually high birth rate).
  - arandomusername 1y ago
    > It’s more of a subsidy for the US military-industrial complex. That's a funny way to twist it. US is providing aid to Israel. Billions a year. US also provides indirect aid, through protection or aid to neighbouring countries (e.g Jordan and Egypt) as bribes so they play nice with Israel. And who knows, with the way the Iran thing is panning out, you might be paying a lot more if US decides to bomb Iran on Israel's request

grunder_advice 1y ago

Mormons and Amish have above replacement fertility rates. Millionaires in western countries also have above replacement fertility rates. To me it seems rather obvious: you need both the will and the means to raise 3+ children.

logicchains 1y ago
Shouldn't it be the will or the means, not the will and the means, giving how relatively poor the Amish are in financial terms?
- bombcar 1y ago
  The Amish have the means because their means are not measured in normal dollar amounts. Most of what they have is traded and transacted outside of the dollar economy. In fact, they may majority be of subsistence in which case the entire dollar value of all of their stuff is simply the land.
arrowsmith 1y ago
I’m not sure it’s about having the “means”, since birth rates were far higher in the past when everybody was much poorer.
- Spivak 1y ago
  You can solve the means problem by making everyone wealthier or by lowering everyone's expectations. The problem is that "how much it costs to raise children" is dependent on your environment. One group's normal is another's neglectful parenting. The catch-22 is that the people you presumably want to be having more children— educated working professionals— have some of the highest social standards for child rearing.

dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago

> Increase the number of (young) immigrants Increase the number of (young female) immigrants