• paulpauper 18 hours ago |
    I agree; it's not as serious as the alarmist language used by the media would suggest. Consider Japan, the posterchild of poor demographics and fertility collapse, has seen its population decline just very slightly, and this is on top of having among the most restrictive immigration policy of any developed country. https://greyenlightenment.com/2024/10/04/there-is-no-fertili...

    The underlying math of population growth and replacement allows for a wide range of fertility rates that predicts only a very slight long-term decrease of population. There is more than enough time to reverse such a decline if policy makers were so inclined. And this is also offset by increasing economic productivity, longer lifespans, more per-capita wealth, and so on. Fewer people are necessary when each person can contribute and consume more.

    • thombat 14 hours ago |
      That link rather misses the problem in only considering the total population. The graphs under https://www.population-trends-asiapacific.org/data/JPN give a more nuanced view of the problem; graph 5 shows that the proportion of the population that is past child-bearing age is steadily increasing. In 1990 the 0-14 and 65+ age groups were equally large, today 65+ is three times larger. In essence the increase in longevity is somewhat masking the decline of the young.
  • mihaic 18 hours ago |
    This article is one of the most infuriating pieces of shallow thinking I've read for a while now. It seems to acknowledge that there might be a real demographic problem in a couple decades, but since there's no clear evidence, the conclusion is just to not worry so much about it?

    > low-fertility countries now produce around nine-tenths of the world’s GDP

    And that can also be interpreted in how they're redirecting effort that would be spent in raising the next generating, to pump up their current economy. It's basically putting the entire society in structural debt.

    Like the modern environmental crisis, the demographic one is also avoidable, but only if we act in a well thought out manner. At least here there should be more incentive for each state to start first, since you'll reap a lot more of your own work later on.

    • erichocean 13 hours ago |
      One long-term solution is the following:

      - Everyone pays for their parents in their old age.

      - If you want people to pay for you in your old age, invest in children of your own (by having them, raising them, etc.).

      - Or, you can invest the money you would have spent on children on yourself instead, or on your own investments. You are then responsible for yourself in your old age, no matter what happens.

      - Finally, we take a fixed percentage of the output of all working age people, divide it up evenly among the old people (who had children, weighted by number of kids)—and that's how much they get that year. If the children, in aggregate, earn more—old people are better off. If not, they're worse off (so do a good job raising kids, give them opportunities, etc.).

      This system is inherently solvent forever, since all old people that have children benefit from them in their old age—and those that don't, don't.

      It's literally impossible to have an "inverted population pyramid" or a "demographic crisis" with this scheme since all old people are accounted for.

      • mihaic 8 hours ago |
        I agree with most of what you say, but I think real solutions involve even more change to the current system. Essentially, I don't think we can keep having the system of passive income, where more and more of the wealth is owned by people who live off an investment portfolio.

        Since solving the demographic crisis would have to involve some wealth redistribution, combined with new ways to support parents at the disadvantage of non-parents, it'll be fought hard by interest groups.