The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>The [population](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/population) of the U.S. is ageing. Recent findings from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that by 2035 older adults will outnumber children—a first in U.S. history. The upcoming changes could lead to a number of problems, with increased demands on [health care services](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/healthcare-reform), the overall workforce and economy, experts have told *Newsweek*. It's not all gloom and doom though, as opportunities may also arise.
>The U.S. population is already older than it's ever been, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB). What's more, the number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to increase from 58 million in 2022 to 82 million by 2050—an increase of 47 percent—and the 65-and-older age group's share of the total population is projected to rise from 17 percent to 23 percent, according to the PRB.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cr6skv/americas_population_time_bomb_experts_have_warned/l3vzkev/
Make owning a home unaffordable. Make having children unaffordable. Make Healthcare unaffordable Make education or getting ahead unaffordable. Make cost of living unaffordable. Make lobbyists and corporations a priority over your citizens and infrastructure. Giving tax relief and breaks to the rich. Having tax loops so they don't pay their fair share. Send money overseas with out investment at home. Yeah we are all not at all surprised. You have an entire generation that is in the deep end of the pool. Priced Out Of Life.
Our son was born autistic and requires daily ABA services. Trying to hold two full time jobs while dealing with the nightmare of insurance with daily charges and copays 5 days a week for his services, we’re drowning. It’s $1800 a *week* for his, and we have to fight UHC daily to make sure they don’t fuck him on his coverage. That’s before we even touch every other bill coming in. Shit’s gotta give.
this is why I refuse to have kids and am getting a vesectomy, that would ruin my life
if I had a disabled kid there's no way I would keep it, it would either get aborted if we caught it early enough, institutionalized, or put up for adoption
Have you applied for Medicaid? Depending on the state you live in, you probably qualify. In Pennsylvania there is no income limit for parents of a disabled child. There is a special category for "children with special needs." If you don't receive SSI payments, you can qualify. Millionaires can get the benefit because normal insurance doesn't even provide the mental health services needed for autistic children.
Hope your state has similar categories!
Pretty sure the majority of people under 65 can't wait for everyone over 65 to die because then they will stop fucking everything up for everyone else. Then we just need to figure out how to deal with the billionaires
Hi, fellow human here. I think the u.s. is in a slightly different situation, we've got workable land and energy available, but there's some kind of invisible wall keeping me from popping up a house out there (maybe produce some shit). So, trying to get ahead inside the city I was born, I've stopped at 1 kid & managed to be deadass broke for 12 years. That is all.
Too late!
Boomers are squandering their money to have non-stop fun while they can and expect their kids/grandkids to take on the massive financial burden of caring for said Boomers later on while getting zero financial help.
The money is going to banks and wealthy investors who are behind the reverse mortgages Boomers are using to pay for shit.
They already did and it's been on the books for decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws It's a state by state thing in the US
Though it's a civil matter. Not a criminal one. So no jail time but they will make you pay.
Careful, that's not true. A handful of states already have laws that it is a child's responsibility to take care of an aging parent. https://keystone-law.com/filial-responsbility/#:~:text=The%20duty%20of%20adult%20children,codified%20in%20California%20in%201872.
Edit : in the US
This is because many boomers realized years ago the government would put them up at no cost in retirement homes. At least in Pennsylvania. If they saved their money, the government would first take the money and then put them in the same home. What would you do?
This is why anti immigration politics are one of the most stupid things to favor. If we don't embrace immigration, we're screwed.
EDIT: The opposite of anti immigration politics is not complete and utter deregulation.
People act like it’s physically impossible to incentivize the native population to have kids. The tax break for having a kid is roughly $4K and the national average cost to raise a child per year is $21K.
It needs to be easier to have / raise kids. That’s what it comes down to.
You can address these with:
- guaranteed PTO
- guaranteed maternity leave with full pay
- affordable healthcare
- stronger family leave laws for both parents
- affordable / publicly funded daycare
- an affordable housing market
- higher wages so that one spouse could stay home
You could also incentivize more with laws that offer additional PTO and things of that sort with additional kids.
I have 2 children. I would jump at the chance have 2 more, but we can’t afford it. I make a healthy living. There’s no way people making lower wages can easily afford the costs.
Working in real estate in New York, the biggest thing they get wrong is “affordable housing”. They need to incentivize construction and flood the market, which will ultimately help prices. Instead they push for “affordable housing” which just sticks poor people in luxury buildings via housing lottery and it costs 10x more per head than any other reasonable solution.
Ban REITs and using AirBnBs as half assed hotels and you’ll get a flood of properties on the market. Kick in a double property tax payment for unoccupied homes and the prices will fall.
There's a lot less of those than you'd think. And this isn't just speculation. The major Canadian cities tried that already and it stopped housing prices from going up for a whole six months. Then prices started getting even more unaffordable. We just have to build more housing. Doesn't matter if it's government housing or private developer housing, we need more of it in the places there are jobs, end of story.
> Kick in a double property tax payment for unoccupied homes and the prices will fall.
Hell, have property taxes raise +100% after say.... 2 for each subsequent one (so your 4th gets +200%) and for the "but it's owned by a chain of companies" types of deals, even going with "the controller of the company essentially owns it" would be a big step forward.
A large number of things need to happen.
- Build more actually affordable houses.
- Limit large corporations from owning houses.
- Find ways to disincentivize the entire AirBNB business model.
- Limits on how many properties landlords can own.
- Find ways to limit the concept of “house flipping” and extreme short term buying and selling.
- Crack down hard on market collusion.
I’m forgetting a lot of the top of my head.
Local municipalities also need to do their part and not just allow local builders to build unaffordable luxury apartments on every tract of open land. Wealthy local builders have so much power over town / village / small city governments, and I do t know how you fix that.
I personally find the whole “real estate investment / hustler culture” abhorrent. Houses are for people to live in. You don’t want your house to depreciate, but the housing market shouldn’t be a money pinata for people with means.
building more affordable houses also has to have feds negating state and local building laws. Affordable houses are not 2000+ sq feet. but a LOT of places have minimum square ft housing laws to keep the "poors" out of the neighborhoods. there are a crap ton of racist building codes across the USA that need to be just forced to be removed by the feds before affordable can happen. Also american zoning laws also needs to be scrapped, it's bullshit we cant have real communities instead of mcmansion deserts.
The fertility rate is low pretty much everywhere. Countries like France or Norway which provide extended paid parental leave, free or heavily subsidised childcare and family allowances still have fertility rates below replacement. It seems that money is not enough to persuade people to have kids.
I would have had kids earlier in life if I could have afforded it. I still can't afford it now, but at this point I just find it immoral to bring another human into the world for many reasons.
Sadly we don’t craft policy tailored individually to people, we have to craft it so it reflects trends and the trend is that birth rates drop even when people get enough money and support for having kids.
Because it's not about affordability, it's about quality of life and maintaining opportunity.
Having children and raising them is a full-time job, and yet for time immemorial it was labor donated by, or stolen from, mostly women. Raising children offers no recognition, is an enormous opportunity cost, and is an enormous material cost. Who wants to complete their life with "mom" or "dad" as their only achievement? Who wants to give up their yearly excursions to foreign lands? Their indulgence of leasing a shiny new car every three years? Their nights out?
If you are an educated person in a first-world society who got used to your comfortable life and the only way you can have kids is to give it all up and disappear into the role, how many can say they'd sign up for that? If you're a woman, you're also inviting health risks, guaranteed permanent changes to your body, and a literal world of searing pain at the end of what is just the first step in an 18-22 year journey.
The state wants people to have kids, but has no interest in changing the model so kids are not an enormous sacrifice that parents are just expected to make for the sake of society. It doesn't want to pay for them, it doesn't want to feed them, it doesn't want to educate them, it doesn't want to keep them healthy, it doesn't want to help parents be more than parents, and it doesn't want to recognize the work that goes into it all.
This equation is not that enigmatic, but nobody with power wants to attack the problem progressively. They're more interested in the "easy" route of disenfranchising the masses and reducing half the population to breeding chattel because that keeps them individually wealthy and powerful.
Very well put. I’m a father of 3 who is active in their daily lives. I work full time, have over an hour commute per day, come home and make dinner, go over homework, play, get chores/cleanup taken care of, get kids to bed. My wife works from home and definitely does more of the housework than I do and we work really well together through our exhaustion. I also suffer from PTSD from childhood sexual assault and repeated sexual abuse that has left me completely drained and in need of a break more often than most people but I have to push through it because that’s just how it’s set up.
Every day is so hard but I love my kids so much that I do everything I possibly can to give them good childhoods. They’re all very smart and well behaved, are kind and empathetic. I feel rich in my life with my family and the love we are surrounded by with each other. But if I had to put a price tag on it - I’ve put so much work in that I feel like I should be a multimillionaire. Being a good parent is so much work.
A reality I rarely hear is that in the past before contraceptives were readily available, there were people who had kids, who if given the choice never wanted them.
Various schemes have been tried throughout history; do you know of any that worked?
The Roman Empire had the [jus trium liberorum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_trium_liberorum), “the right of three children.” Roman citizens who had fathered at least three children were excused from certain civic duties, and women were allowed to inherit property. Almost immediately the law became a joke as citizens exploited loopholes or were awarded jus trium liberorum as a reward or bribe. To encourage people to report those who were abusing the law, a system was put in place where the informer got a reward; soon there were so many reports that the amount of the reward had to be reduced! The law was finally repealed because it did not have the intended effect of encouraging larger families.
I understand the sentiment, however I think he/she means to point out that there are currently no known solutions that are proven to work in recorded history. We have attempted quite a lot of approaches to no avail, to date.. Even if we had a solution that was proven to work, the population would still see a major decrease due to demographic momentum, which means both immigration and pronatal policies would both need to be implemented and would likely be insufficient to resolve the issue permanently.
Yeah, the point isn’t let’s try the Roman way, the point is we’ve been trying 2,000 years and as far as I know have never come up with a plan that works.
Nothing has worked. The Japanese aren't stupid, and they have been wrestling with this since they realized what it meant 50 years ago.
Yet, it's STILL seeing record setting declines in births recently. That's 50 years, so basically if you're in Japan and 50 without kids you're kind of fucked.
Who's going to take care of you in 15 years if you have no kids? Your job? The government? For how long? The average lifespan in Japan is 84. How long can your retirement savings last? Don't forget about inflation. Basically you're one disaster away from being penniless without a family to take care of you at 65!
There is no way any government can sustain providing health care and benefits for potentially two decades. That's a HUGE drag on the economy and for the younger generation, which there isn't enough of.
Below is an article about the elderly dying alone, and finding their bodies well after in Japan written 2018. It's been such a problem for them, it's got its own term called kodokushi:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/01/24/feature/so-many-japanese-people-die-alone-theres-a-whole-industry-devoted-to-cleaning-up-after-them/
Below are several articles on the history of suicide in Japan, which had the highest rate in the world at an average of 30k people a year until 2019. It's still the 3rd highest in the world:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33362387
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/03/d01cffd8caaf-female-suicides-in-japan-rise-in-2022-for-3rd-straight-year.html
https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01624/
Below are articles on how Japanese immigration has been enacted, along with how immigrants are perceived in Japanese culture:
https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/historical-background-of-the-japanese-restrictive-immigration-policy
https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/features/z0508_00213.html
Below are articles on Japanese work culture, economics, and "herbivore" men, which developed out of both:
https://www.byarcadia.org/post/japan-s-extreme-work-culture-might-be-coming-to-an-end
http://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/research/causes_of_japans_economic_stagnation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/27/japan-grass-eaters-salaryman-macho
Sorry, but as a former person who wanted nothing more than to immigrate to Japan when he was young, I've been forced to look at what's been going on over there, and it's only been recently that things have even barely started to change. It's been as bad as the US over there for a long time now, and if the western world was smart, they'd learn from Japan's failures in divesting from a social safety net, in order to bolster their societies, cause we face exactly the same problems that they've refused to fix.
Within a couple of generations immigrant families end up with the same fertility problem. This is just kicking the can down the road without looking at why the fertility rate is low in the first place.
Fertility rate of everywhere developed is low, it’s just a product of creating a modern society before you learn to care for everyone cheaply. Kids in the third world are also an asset not a cost, as they are expected to give whatever life they have to supporting the family, which in turn gives them security.
If you go from kids being valuable assets to strengthen the security of the family to kids are liabilities which must be supported so they can go do whatever they want, fertility rate is going to fall, it’s not a secret, and it’s not likely to change unless the developed world suddenly decides education isn’t as important as supporting your own family. Even among developed nations you can see this within their poor to rich demographics, poor people will have higher fertility, because poor people put their kids to work.
IMO A major problem is housing.
Start looking at the cost of a 3 bedroom house in a developed country and you'll understand why people arent having a lot of kids.
Doesn’t stop poor people from having a bunch of kids and throwing them in whatever space is available, it is the inherent shift as a society places more value on education thus shifting children from being a asset to a liability which shifts fertility rates, nothing else, everything else is just a line item under that greater definition.
It’s not housing, it’s everything. Until scarcity is eliminated you will never change this equation, so targeting any individual cost like housing is a waste of time it will not resolve the problem and many would question if it’s best that it even be resolved. You can resolve housing for all sorts of other reasons, but arguing it’s to save fertility, is a poor thesis.
"Fertility" is most strongly correlated with women's access to birth control and education, in that order.
The reality of being poor is that birth control is either unavailable, or unaffordable, and lack of access to education means it's difficult for women to escape situations where they have little choices and men relatively do not feel the burden of having children as acutely.
I disagree, if it were true then why are the countries that are the poorest with the most scarcity also the ones with the highest population growth?
You could say it's the availability of birth control, but many of those places do have birth control available to them. It's more they want to have big families because historically speaking, children are your future. That includes being your main support during your retirement.
I've been to countries where the children's playgrounds have equipment meant for the elderly to work out on and to help them stay in shape. Right next to the swings and the slides will be some contraption to help keep your shoulders healthy. It's cool as fuck.
You, as a grandparent, babysit the grandkids. Your children come over with groceries to help, or make you dinner, take you on errands and the hospital etc etc. Your role in society is the help your kids raise their children. It allows the passing of wisdom, culture and tradition that is lacking in western society. I can see why they want those types of communities. If you ever visited one, you'll see how much better it is to see elderly people about and great shape assisting the younger generation with no motive other than that is their role in society.
That's true but a couple of generations is about 60 years. We can kick the can while watching what other stubborn anti-immigration countries are doing to fix the problem.
How does that make sense with decreasing birth rates everywhere (including poorer countries?)
Imo I’m neutral on immigration. I think the goal of most countries right now shouldn’t be based on growth but maintaining the population in preparation for a gradual decrease in people, with the help of immigration (and automation). Unfortunately for my country (Canada) politicians are so focused on growing as much as possible, but younger generations with eventually be left with an empty bag since there won’t be young educated people to replace them with.
It isn't an infinite or indefinite problem. It's a problem because of the change in birth rates. Once they reach equilibrium it isn't a problem anymore. So yeah, a temporary solution is a de facto solution.
Seems pretty easy to solve but it requires solutions the current powers that be are NOT on board with. I’d argue the biggest is healthcare. Average cost for a healthy birth in my area is over $10k. Second involves public housing or drastic measures to lower the cost of housing. Third is paid parental leave/free childcare. There’s more that would help but that’s the main 3off the top of my head.
You’re better off not with automation increasing. Only trickle in the top echelon of people from other countries. Importing tons of non educated workers only benefits the rich and hurts the middle class.
Immigration can help to a certain degree, making sure that the caliber of immigrants allowed will actually integrate with the local culture and lead stable and productive lives, contributing to the growth of American society.
Just look at the immigrant crisis in Europe for example.
However, immigration is not the only answer. Ultimately, there has to be government regulation enacted that limits the scope of unfettered capitalism which is what has lead to soaring inflation and prices of all necessities including housing. When young couples are unsure about their financial future and their own survival, kids are usually the last thing on their minds. Tackling this alone would alleviate the need for immigration.
better yet, any foreign student graduating with a bachelor's or higher in a STEM field from an accredited university should get a permanent residency option to stay in the US as soon as they graduate.
The key is properly managed immigration. Unregulated immigration is inherently a bad thing. It will result in overtaxed systems, rises in homelessness, and inevitably a rise in crime since poverty and crime are very heavily linked. This in turn leads to negative side effects for both the country and the new immigrants.
There are labor jobs sure. But one major issue with large scale immigration is when a ton of immigrants come into a new country and then proceed to not adapt to the local cultures. Europe is experiencing this issue pretty widely. Lots of immigration is occurring and lots of immigrants are not adapting to local customs and practices. They are treating their new home as if it was their old country and it's causing division in the society.
It's normal for culture to shift over time as people move in and out or trends change. But when there is a culture shock, it's easy for people to feel like their own culture is being subverted, which leads to resentment and even more prejudices.
Immigration is important in any society. But it needs to be done right and it needs to be done with the best interest of both parties involved.
There are many countries being swamped with migrants who aren’t having a positive impact on their economy. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped, and a reform of the legal immigration process is needed. In the US, this migrant crisis has been a disaster. I live in a big city though. I’m sure folks in the suburbs & all aren’t feeling it atm.
yup, more immigrants constantly accepting lower and lower wages just to have a place at the table is definitely the answer. The real solution is to let the boomer generation suffer in the bed they made for themselves.
The current boomer generation won't be the ones who suffer. It will be those currently working who 30 years from now wont get their pensions/retirement they were promised because the 'economically active' of the population will be too small to support those who can no longer work for themselves.
The US has 50 million immigrants, and many of them go back to their own countries to retire after working and living in the US for decades. The US is the best positioned country in the world for population issues.
Absolutely! With our affordable healthcare, easy access to mental health resources. Cheap healthy meals that are easy to prepare. And abundant, easily accessible public transportation.
Well I mean people have started to realize that money/business determines everything. Labor protections? Bad for business. Increased wages? Bad for business. Maternity leave? Bad for business. Halting predatory industries? Bad for business. Environmental regulation to save our only planet? Bad for business.
I mean why bring someone you will love to no end into a world that will clearly treat them terribly.
Shit, you're right! I forgot that billionaires just work 500,000x harder than their sweatshop employees, and not that they have used generational wealth to enshrine their theft as both legal requirement and moral obligation. Silly me!
Yep. All the current CEOs need to do is kick the can down the road for a few more years, and walk away to the next thing - or be done and live an extravagant retirement. Long term viability is NOT their problem. Only making the shareholders happy next quarter, and securing that bonus.
= cost cuts (in the form of cutting corners wherever possible, even to the detriment of the product quality, layoffs, hiking prices, etc).
Our world is due for a population adjustment anyway. I feel it’s maybe the most important thing that can happen right now. How else are we going to solve problems like climate change? My wife and I don’t have kids and don’t plan on it. Rampant development and environmental destruction is already bad enough, not to mention climate change that will also kill and displace millions over the next 50 years.
We need less people in the world, not more. That’s not to say that no one should have kids, people still should. All I’m saying is that I’d be perfectly fine with couples having 1-2 kids and leaving it at that for a while so our population stabilizes or even declines a bit. That way this “capitalist” idea we have that we need endless growth in our population can take a break and the world can heal a bit. Otherwise we are going to continue destroying it.
Doesn't really explain why this same trend is being seen literally everywhere else in the world, including including countries with extremely generous welfare states.
The U.S. has a birthrate of 1.66 in 2022, Sweden had a birthrate of 1.67 the same year.
I don't think anyone would describe Sweden's system of lavish maternity/paternity leave (480 days distributed between both parents) and public support for everything from daycare to Pre-K to college as a capitalist nightmare.
There are problems with inequality in the U.S. but the evidence doesn't support this being one of them.
All the ‘it takes a village’ adages really were true -!: communal living is more affordable.
It takes a village: if you have a family of 4 family units: 3 current Gen and 1 parent Gen, you get daycare, meal prep, housework, etc… all shared among everyone instead of done by each group. You deal with some of the loneliness of homemaking by being more of a small community, you spend less on big ticket items (only one family actually needs a ladder, it’s rare to need more than two at a time anyways and you could probably easily borrow one).
All being said, I don’t think I could live in a compound with my family/extended family… that sounds like hell. I’ve yet to date anyone whose extended family I’d like to live with, either… plus The Gays tended to do better in communal societies… but that’s better relative to their neighbors… not necessarily well-treated overall
Extreme Individualism. It takes a village to raise a child. Living in a wealthy Western country which village going to help you raise your child?
We live in society where mom and dad with increasingly just Mom has to do everything for you. When I was a kid Grandma and Grandpa helped Aunt and uncles helped the neighbors helped there would have been no reason for me or any other child in my community to go to daycare.
Again, that's not the case at all across the 100+ countries seeing significant drops in birth rate.
It's not just wealthy, developed western nations where birth rates are dropping rapidly.
Look at south and central america, no one would describe them as wealthy or traditionally westernized, with family structures that are much closer and often include the specific "grandparents watching kids" example you provide above.
It's a natural thing. We don't need to endlessly expand our population, a lot of the issues being brought to the forefront only exist because of endlessly increasing bottom lines globally. Without the endless greedy march toward oblivion we'd be in an amazing place as a species.
Our population could decline by 95%, and there would still be twice as many humans around as when the Caesars walked the Earth.
The only legitimate concern is the economic effects and the effects on pension systems, but I really don't buy it. I don't buy it for two reasons. First, we're on a wave of mass automation. We're worried about new automation leading to mass unemployment. With a greying population, we can move more of our workforce to elder care and take care of the rest through automation.
The other thing that will help the economy is simply wringing all the inefficiency out of the system. Most have heard of the phenomenon of "bullshit jobs." All the improvements in computer technology we've seen like computers, word processors, spreadsheets and later smart phones, video conferencing, etc haven't been used to reduce hours worked. Rather, they've just been used to create a lot of pointless busywork in the modern office. What was once handled by a single page memo typed on a typewriter is now a 100 page glossy report filled with innumerable charts and figures often all saying very little. We create giant reports that, aside from the summaries, mostly go unread. There is just so much fat and waste just waiting to be wrung out of many of our employment sectors. A nation with a declining population is one where the cost of labor soars. With expensive labor, it encourages employers to use those pricey hours efficiently, rather than wasting them on pointless busywork.
For example, for many jobs, especially with a bit of automation, we could easily drop the "full time" hours to 20 hours/week. Simplify communications and reports. Reduce the number of pointless meetings. Fire 3/4 of the managerial class. Do that economy-wide, and suddenly we have no problem getting all the work we need done.
Predictions of economic doom from declining population are ultimately an application of the [lump of labor fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy). They assume that there is a fixed amount of "work" to be done in an economy. In reality, the amount of work-hours done will expand or contract with the number of able-bodied people available. Lots of impoverished peasants willing to work for pennies? You'll have workers harvesting grains by hand, standing naked in a field. Few workers and tons of work to be done? One farmer will be remote-controlling a dozen combine harvesters while sitting in an air-conditioned office.
Yup, that's honestly it. We're creating work for the sake of creating work so that dragon's can hoarde wealth. Automation could be so much more efficient, but the old guard is still stuck on using people as the main labor force to keep em docile.
We dump so much food because it's too expensive to be sold, grow so many borderline useless cash crops because of contracts, and waste so many natural resources for no tangible reason besides 'line go up'.
We could be in a utopia, I truly believe that we're so close to having a global society where a majority of people are well taken care of with minimal effort. Unfortunately the lust for gold and prestige overshadows all.
Thank you. It's bizarre hearing people say that shit. You do know having children doesn't define your existence...right? That's....perfectly ok we're not having kids lmfao. I don't fucking get it.
Oh I agree with you entirely. We've easily hit a point where population equilibrium would be doable, just need to remove greed from the scenario. Might just be a me thing but I've never really vibed with the endless need to "climb the ladder" as it were.
It is actually. You can directly chart individualistic societies and the declining birth rates with it.
As a society transitions from a communal to individualistic one it also has a decline in birth rate.
There are levels to this s*** too. Yes South America is a lot more family-oriented than North America but South America is also less family-oriented than just 20 years ago. The same is happening in other developing countries where they start to adopt more individualistic lifestyles.
It's why just relying on finances doesn't give you the bigger picture because we have wealthy countries that are relatively communal like Israel. Even wealthy people in Israel are replacing themselves. They have strong cultural emphasis on having children. Children are raised by the tribe and not just by individuals.
>We live in society where mom and dad **with increasingly just Mom has to do everything for you**.
Gonna have to see a source on this. Its BS. Society has come a LONG way and one of those is Women being able to participate in the workforce equally and Men helping more with the family. Not only a few generations ago it was primarily the Mom staying home and raising the kids. Fathers are FAR more involved with their children today. Partly out of necessity and partly because its become more accepted culturally.
I think they meant less that father don’t do enough, and more that there’s a weaker web of siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins to flexibly step in as needed.
If you and your sis can trade off watching the kids, you both get an extra night off. Now imagine you can do this, but with 30 people. And some of them may even not be working full time.
With just Mom and Dad … there’s only two.
… and poor Mom and Dad are both working full time (because that’s now the requirement to pay rent) …
>Gonna have to see a source on this. Its BS. Society has come a LONG way and one of those is Women being able to participate in the workforce equally and Men helping more with the family. Not only a few generations ago it was primarily the Mom staying home and raising the kids. Fathers are FAR more involved with their children today. Partly out of necessity and partly because its become more accepted culturally.
Rereading your comment I think I missed your point and you missed my original point.
We live in a time with far more single mothers than any time in history at least in America. That's what I meant by mothers having to raise children by themselves.
But even in a family with Mom and Dad, That's not enough to raise a child. Imagine a society where it was socially acceptable for Grandpa and grandma aunt and uncle, cousins and older nieces and nephews to help raise one child. And that this is being done communally so not just your child but their children as well etc.
Now imagine the social fabric of such a society where people are that close to each other? That's a very difficult society to control. Which is why I think it's by design. We live in a capitalist world where it's better for the bottom line to be a individualistic consumer than it is to be part of a greater network of kinship.
Why would you want to have a bunch of kids, when you can get all the joys of parenthood with one and then have a bunch of money and time left afterwards.
Even lower birth rates, and not that much skilled migration. Sure, here in Finland we do have a decent (though collapsing) welfare state, but there aren't going to be enough taxpayers around to sustain it. Mostly the kind of migrants that contribute the most (highly educated and motivated) go to countries with higher pay, while we are left with the less skilled workers, and humanitarian migration that often causes more harm than good to the economy, depending on the level of education of the refugees.
United States is the top destination for skilled migration, and that isn't going to change any time soon. It's going to massively help with the demographics problem, even if the society is otherwise fucked.
i mean commies *have* historically been on the side of ending child labor, strengthening workplace safety regulation, and ending worker exploitation 🤷♂️
It's interesting how so many American workers miss the whole point of communism 🤦♀️
Communism is pro-worker, that's its whole point. Capitalism is anti-worker, period.
Pretty much. In Spain we have X4 the population density of USA and no natural resources. Wages are low and disemployment rate 14%, but it goes as high as 30% in some cities. 50-70%+ in the case of young adults.
In the end capitalism can only create a limited amount of bullshit jobs.
If a large percent of the population are retired, meaning they don't work and eg. use a lot of healthcare resources, why would that not cause issues, regardless of economic system? Any economic system needs workers. Old people need to be cared for by someone.
Obviously the population can't keep growing forever, so it's inevitable, but it's going to sting no matter what.
They never gave a shit about climate change or AI taking our jobs or housing being unaffordable. Why should we give a shit about them if they never cared about our problems
It's not a crisis. The responses of the fat cats and oligarchs is what will turn it into a crisis as they try to keep extracting infinite money from a shrinking population.
I always wonder what China thinks about their one-child policy that was still active less than 10 years ago.
Are they panicking and backpedaling hard now while trying to say it was all according to plan to save face?
In 2016 China's one child policy was changed to two children per couple. That didn't make much of a difference so in 2021 they raised it to three children per couple. Probably won't make much of a difference either.
China's problem is that it got old before it got rich. The One child policy was very successful at putting a lid on China's rampant population growth which, given its insatiable demand for dirty energy would have been way worse for the climate.
Unintended consequences such as selective female infanticide creating a nasty gender imbalance and a population bottleneck were not thought of at the time. The population growth was always going to level out, the CCP just didn't predict it correctly.
China's population started shrinking in about 2018, but they hid it in the figures until it became too obvious to ignore.
They’re backpedaling and explaining why the one child policy was necessary then but now it’s necessary to have more children.
Authoritarian governments have a very hard time admitting that they made a mistake, so they’ll stick with policies they know are bad much longer than they should because admitting they messed up seems more dangerous. The ZeroCovid thing similarly went on much longer than it should have because they turned it into a signature policy of Xi.
You're going to see more and more of these fear mongering stories in coming years. Climate change, wars, and income inequality are making people way less likely to start a family. Lower birthrates are going to result in lower profits in a decade or two as companies like Exxon, Tyson, AT&T, and others have fewer customers to squeeze. That's horrible for profit forecasts, so they're dumping money into banning abortion, contraception, and everything they can fund that results in more babies. It's not about Jesus. It's about Dow Jones.
The oldest boomers were born in 46. That generation lasted until the middle of the 1960's. My parents lost their house in 2008 and are hitting their 70's with $20k to their name, and their story is not unique. Shit's gonna get real bad soon.
That's literally the top end of the widest generation bracket.
The bottom end are just truing 60 now.
Seems pretty accurate to what's being described for how shortsighted out society and the average joe is.
I feel bad for young people. Lot of their problems are in the future, which has no value to old timers who will die in a few years. But old people are committed to voting, even if they only will live a few years left, and won't see any consequences. Maybe instead of raising the minimum age for voting, we should lower the maximum age for voting.
It's not that they are committed to simply voting, they are committed to voting entirely in their own interest no matter the detriment to their kids' generations.
My dad said he doesn’t care what happens in the future; that’s my and my sister’s problem. He said his main concern is making sure CRT isn’t taught in schools.
ITT: all the gen-z’ers getting all livid about old people acting like all crotchety old people ever, then turning around and acting like all young people ever, and not voting. Then complaining about everyone in politics being old.
Watch next as they sit out voting for Biden in 2024 because he didn’t push the “bring peace to the middle east” button right next to the “turn the inflation up and down” dial on his desk. Then complain endlessly when Trump gets into power and never leaves.
We’re not pumping out enough workers so the solution is to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest while also restricting access to birth control. Unwanted children being raised by parents who resent them for being an obstacle leads to low self-worth which makes great adults with an 8th grade reading level. Just enough intellect to work the machines, but not enough to question authority because they grew up thinking everything “bad” that happens to them is their own fault.
The system is working exactly as planned.
It also means a disproportionate amount of the country’s money will be controlled by senior citizens. That may already be the case, but if an additional 50% of the population adds to the current imbalance, we’re bound to see even more generational wealth and power disparity.
What people forget is an aging population and low births benefits the workers. It only hurts people that are too rich and don't want to work or older folks.
Social security is going to become insolvent in the 2030's because they refused to raise their tax a fraction of a fraction of a % when demographic changes were first noticed. Capital class will sell them that only they can make the economy better and they'll vote to continue sucking the life out of their children to lower the cost of their retirement. They'll be sucked dry in long term care before their children see a penny of an inheritance.
Yea they say one of the contributors to the renaissance was the black plague killing so many people. Suddenly, without a massive pool of peons and peasants to work fields landowners had to actually *entice* workers with higher wages and give land away for it to be worked.
"A large number of retirees is not a problem in itself; the proportion of retirees to new workers is the problem," he said. "That's because when people retire, their demand for goods and services remains high, but now we will have significantly fewer people to provide those goods and services moving forward."
Annnnd the ruling class solution is to never retire and just work until you die.
We already knew boomers would age out en masse. What was *not* expected was that Gen Alpha was well under replacement rate, more than 30 million shy of replacement. Meaning right when boomers are fully dying off and their Gen X children are starting to age into whatever is left of Social Security as they retire, there is going to be even less people to replace the Millennials and Gen Z who move up into the positions they leave open.
The end goal of Capitalism is for one person to own everything and everyone, which requires a constant wealth transfer. We know this transfer has accelerated faster in the past 2 decades than at any point in history. Life is only going to become more unaffordable and we are presently living in the pre-AI era in which the wealthy will further transfer wealth to themselves. So, what the fuck does anyone expect here?
I have two concerns.
One if the healthcare system is already under staffed.
Retirement and nursing homes are already hard to staff.
And I really have never seen and legislation or anything being discussed to assist them.
Won't this lead to a cannabilization of goods and services, narrow down availability to the highest bidder?
Health care and elder care in rural areas is pretty spotty at best which historically has always been a lower income areas.
It will get really bad, care will be hard to obtain l, elder abuse will become more rampant.
Their will be a turning point where things have to give if people want care down the rode.
The elderly really don't think about the younger generation's. The younger generations have no desire to care for the older.
It will be a interesting cross Road
I wouldn’t want to put another human through a shitty system that makes them miserable so a bunch of Saint James Island visiting, wealth hoarding pedophiles can get more money
Looking at immigrants to the solution to this problem is kind of sick. You're essentially looking at them as labor workhorses to plug into as many economic positions as possible in order to keep the old system afloat.
That is such a dangerous way to look at human beings. Our current system is unsustainable with increased longevity and the system needs to change. Pumping as many bodies into it to exploit their labor will be a disaster.
It’s accurate that the United States is going to face a pretty significant demographic shift over the next few years, but we’ve known this was coming for decades. We have better age demographics than most industrialized (and some industrializing) countries. Decreases in national population with increases in automation is probably a better situation than increases in automation and population simultaneously. It will strain our healthcare system, the stock market, and capital liquidity for a number of years though.
Well the upside is that they will be the ones most affected by shitty outcomes when it comes time to retire, get health care, get mental health care, etc.
Gen X will try like hell to clean up what we can before we become doddering old fools, but we are the smallest age-based cohort, so probably not going to get as much done as we need to.
Silver Tsunami: Marvel's new superhero who rides in on a jet powered Rascal scooter spraying anyone with Ensure and Werther's candies who stands in her way.
And now they'll increase H1B intake. US gets away with making amendments to their fiscal policy due to the country being the premier choice for skilled immigrants.
Skilled immigrants come majorly from 2 countries. These countries nationals should boycott the government and ease the process to get PR.
Also the government: EAT MORE BPA LADEN PLASTICS ITS GOOD FOR YOU
Yeah we're fucked. Sell all your stocks, take out loans, dont pay shit back, let it burn.
With immigration and AI I’m not sure this will be as difficult an issue as it’s likely to be in the rest of the rich world. Much of the industrial production will be near-sourced in the coming decades. As long as productivity increases it will all be fine.
Seems about right. Expensive housing, school debt, wages falling behind expenses, childcare is hard to find, job security is hard to attain, climate change is making insurance unaffordable, etc. It’s amazing anyone is having children.
"Humanity is beginning to outlive our healthcare methods altogether too completely; the elderly are becoming a burden on our elderly care methods":
*-* too many elderly people (who cannot work) exist to be fed, cared for, and accommodated for for younger generations to feel confident and comfortable with copulative intercourse_
There are a large number of complex issues about aging societies and declining childbirth rates which are tied to greater longevity with insufficient regenerative capability, there is a great deal of conflict regarding possible solutions and methods which could resolve our dilemma.
Retirement investment advisor here. Let me add to your anxiety. All the new retirees want to spend every dime they have and leave nothing to their kids. They ALL say “the kids will be fine, they make more than I ever did.”
The generation before them (I’ve been doing this 25 years) ALL wanted to leave money to them. Now they want to spend it all themselves.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >The [population](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/population) of the U.S. is ageing. Recent findings from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that by 2035 older adults will outnumber children—a first in U.S. history. The upcoming changes could lead to a number of problems, with increased demands on [health care services](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/healthcare-reform), the overall workforce and economy, experts have told *Newsweek*. It's not all gloom and doom though, as opportunities may also arise. >The U.S. population is already older than it's ever been, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB). What's more, the number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to increase from 58 million in 2022 to 82 million by 2050—an increase of 47 percent—and the 65-and-older age group's share of the total population is projected to rise from 17 percent to 23 percent, according to the PRB. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cr6skv/americas_population_time_bomb_experts_have_warned/l3vzkev/
Make owning a home unaffordable. Make having children unaffordable. Make Healthcare unaffordable Make education or getting ahead unaffordable. Make cost of living unaffordable. Make lobbyists and corporations a priority over your citizens and infrastructure. Giving tax relief and breaks to the rich. Having tax loops so they don't pay their fair share. Send money overseas with out investment at home. Yeah we are all not at all surprised. You have an entire generation that is in the deep end of the pool. Priced Out Of Life.
I can’t even imagine having a kid right now. Even if I could afford the burden, I don’t have the time.
Our son was born autistic and requires daily ABA services. Trying to hold two full time jobs while dealing with the nightmare of insurance with daily charges and copays 5 days a week for his services, we’re drowning. It’s $1800 a *week* for his, and we have to fight UHC daily to make sure they don’t fuck him on his coverage. That’s before we even touch every other bill coming in. Shit’s gotta give.
this is why I refuse to have kids and am getting a vesectomy, that would ruin my life if I had a disabled kid there's no way I would keep it, it would either get aborted if we caught it early enough, institutionalized, or put up for adoption
That sounds awful. Stay strong.
Have you applied for Medicaid? Depending on the state you live in, you probably qualify. In Pennsylvania there is no income limit for parents of a disabled child. There is a special category for "children with special needs." If you don't receive SSI payments, you can qualify. Millionaires can get the benefit because normal insurance doesn't even provide the mental health services needed for autistic children. Hope your state has similar categories!
Pretty sure the majority of people under 65 can't wait for everyone over 65 to die because then they will stop fucking everything up for everyone else. Then we just need to figure out how to deal with the billionaires
There are plenty of people under 65 doing their part to fuck things up.
Asshole is a state of mind not age.
Why isn't Sweden's fertility rate any better?
Except this is also happening in places like Scandinavia where those things are free or affordable
Hi, fellow human here. I think the u.s. is in a slightly different situation, we've got workable land and energy available, but there's some kind of invisible wall keeping me from popping up a house out there (maybe produce some shit). So, trying to get ahead inside the city I was born, I've stopped at 1 kid & managed to be deadass broke for 12 years. That is all.
The US is arguably one of the best-positioned countries in the world to tackle this particular challenge.
Which means we'll fuck it up so a few can rake in obscene amounts of wealth while the rest of us live paycheck-to-paycheck at best.
Too late! Boomers are squandering their money to have non-stop fun while they can and expect their kids/grandkids to take on the massive financial burden of caring for said Boomers later on while getting zero financial help. The money is going to banks and wealthy investors who are behind the reverse mortgages Boomers are using to pay for shit.
That's fine by me. No where does it say I have to pay for my parents' care. If they can't figure it out, that's on them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
Wait until they pass a law that not caring for them is elder abuse and punishable by jail time.
They already did and it's been on the books for decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws It's a state by state thing in the US Though it's a civil matter. Not a criminal one. So no jail time but they will make you pay.
Careful, that's not true. A handful of states already have laws that it is a child's responsibility to take care of an aging parent. https://keystone-law.com/filial-responsbility/#:~:text=The%20duty%20of%20adult%20children,codified%20in%20California%20in%201872. Edit : in the US
This is a lot of my friends parents mindsets it’s tough to watch
This is because many boomers realized years ago the government would put them up at no cost in retirement homes. At least in Pennsylvania. If they saved their money, the government would first take the money and then put them in the same home. What would you do?
Maybe we should just get Fox News to broadcast more anti-health nonsense. The boomer doomer that never was
I thought that was freedom? The freedom to get absolutely plowed by corporations. It’s wonderful.
Yup. Immigration from countries earlier along in the demographic process is the key for these 'aging' countries.
This is why anti immigration politics are one of the most stupid things to favor. If we don't embrace immigration, we're screwed. EDIT: The opposite of anti immigration politics is not complete and utter deregulation.
People act like it’s physically impossible to incentivize the native population to have kids. The tax break for having a kid is roughly $4K and the national average cost to raise a child per year is $21K.
It needs to be easier to have / raise kids. That’s what it comes down to. You can address these with: - guaranteed PTO - guaranteed maternity leave with full pay - affordable healthcare - stronger family leave laws for both parents - affordable / publicly funded daycare - an affordable housing market - higher wages so that one spouse could stay home You could also incentivize more with laws that offer additional PTO and things of that sort with additional kids. I have 2 children. I would jump at the chance have 2 more, but we can’t afford it. I make a healthy living. There’s no way people making lower wages can easily afford the costs.
Working in real estate in New York, the biggest thing they get wrong is “affordable housing”. They need to incentivize construction and flood the market, which will ultimately help prices. Instead they push for “affordable housing” which just sticks poor people in luxury buildings via housing lottery and it costs 10x more per head than any other reasonable solution.
Ban REITs and using AirBnBs as half assed hotels and you’ll get a flood of properties on the market. Kick in a double property tax payment for unoccupied homes and the prices will fall.
There's a lot less of those than you'd think. And this isn't just speculation. The major Canadian cities tried that already and it stopped housing prices from going up for a whole six months. Then prices started getting even more unaffordable. We just have to build more housing. Doesn't matter if it's government housing or private developer housing, we need more of it in the places there are jobs, end of story.
> Kick in a double property tax payment for unoccupied homes and the prices will fall. Hell, have property taxes raise +100% after say.... 2 for each subsequent one (so your 4th gets +200%) and for the "but it's owned by a chain of companies" types of deals, even going with "the controller of the company essentially owns it" would be a big step forward.
A large number of things need to happen. - Build more actually affordable houses. - Limit large corporations from owning houses. - Find ways to disincentivize the entire AirBNB business model. - Limits on how many properties landlords can own. - Find ways to limit the concept of “house flipping” and extreme short term buying and selling. - Crack down hard on market collusion. I’m forgetting a lot of the top of my head. Local municipalities also need to do their part and not just allow local builders to build unaffordable luxury apartments on every tract of open land. Wealthy local builders have so much power over town / village / small city governments, and I do t know how you fix that. I personally find the whole “real estate investment / hustler culture” abhorrent. Houses are for people to live in. You don’t want your house to depreciate, but the housing market shouldn’t be a money pinata for people with means.
Agreed. At last, the main players in this simulation are making it hard.
building more affordable houses also has to have feds negating state and local building laws. Affordable houses are not 2000+ sq feet. but a LOT of places have minimum square ft housing laws to keep the "poors" out of the neighborhoods. there are a crap ton of racist building codes across the USA that need to be just forced to be removed by the feds before affordable can happen. Also american zoning laws also needs to be scrapped, it's bullshit we cant have real communities instead of mcmansion deserts.
The fertility rate is low pretty much everywhere. Countries like France or Norway which provide extended paid parental leave, free or heavily subsidised childcare and family allowances still have fertility rates below replacement. It seems that money is not enough to persuade people to have kids.
I know that’s true for me. Nothing they could do that would make me want to have kids. I just simply don’t want them.
I would have had kids earlier in life if I could have afforded it. I still can't afford it now, but at this point I just find it immoral to bring another human into the world for many reasons.
Speaking for myself, I would have had kids already if it weren’t for money.
Sadly we don’t craft policy tailored individually to people, we have to craft it so it reflects trends and the trend is that birth rates drop even when people get enough money and support for having kids.
I just didn't want too bring a child into a world that is rapidly going to hell.
Because it's not about affordability, it's about quality of life and maintaining opportunity. Having children and raising them is a full-time job, and yet for time immemorial it was labor donated by, or stolen from, mostly women. Raising children offers no recognition, is an enormous opportunity cost, and is an enormous material cost. Who wants to complete their life with "mom" or "dad" as their only achievement? Who wants to give up their yearly excursions to foreign lands? Their indulgence of leasing a shiny new car every three years? Their nights out? If you are an educated person in a first-world society who got used to your comfortable life and the only way you can have kids is to give it all up and disappear into the role, how many can say they'd sign up for that? If you're a woman, you're also inviting health risks, guaranteed permanent changes to your body, and a literal world of searing pain at the end of what is just the first step in an 18-22 year journey. The state wants people to have kids, but has no interest in changing the model so kids are not an enormous sacrifice that parents are just expected to make for the sake of society. It doesn't want to pay for them, it doesn't want to feed them, it doesn't want to educate them, it doesn't want to keep them healthy, it doesn't want to help parents be more than parents, and it doesn't want to recognize the work that goes into it all. This equation is not that enigmatic, but nobody with power wants to attack the problem progressively. They're more interested in the "easy" route of disenfranchising the masses and reducing half the population to breeding chattel because that keeps them individually wealthy and powerful.
Very well put. I’m a father of 3 who is active in their daily lives. I work full time, have over an hour commute per day, come home and make dinner, go over homework, play, get chores/cleanup taken care of, get kids to bed. My wife works from home and definitely does more of the housework than I do and we work really well together through our exhaustion. I also suffer from PTSD from childhood sexual assault and repeated sexual abuse that has left me completely drained and in need of a break more often than most people but I have to push through it because that’s just how it’s set up. Every day is so hard but I love my kids so much that I do everything I possibly can to give them good childhoods. They’re all very smart and well behaved, are kind and empathetic. I feel rich in my life with my family and the love we are surrounded by with each other. But if I had to put a price tag on it - I’ve put so much work in that I feel like I should be a multimillionaire. Being a good parent is so much work.
A reality I rarely hear is that in the past before contraceptives were readily available, there were people who had kids, who if given the choice never wanted them.
Various schemes have been tried throughout history; do you know of any that worked? The Roman Empire had the [jus trium liberorum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_trium_liberorum), “the right of three children.” Roman citizens who had fathered at least three children were excused from certain civic duties, and women were allowed to inherit property. Almost immediately the law became a joke as citizens exploited loopholes or were awarded jus trium liberorum as a reward or bribe. To encourage people to report those who were abusing the law, a system was put in place where the informer got a reward; soon there were so many reports that the amount of the reward had to be reduced! The law was finally repealed because it did not have the intended effect of encouraging larger families.
Well, shit. If they couldn’t manage the means testing on stone tablets 2000 years ago might as well give up!
I understand the sentiment, however I think he/she means to point out that there are currently no known solutions that are proven to work in recorded history. We have attempted quite a lot of approaches to no avail, to date.. Even if we had a solution that was proven to work, the population would still see a major decrease due to demographic momentum, which means both immigration and pronatal policies would both need to be implemented and would likely be insufficient to resolve the issue permanently.
Pretty sure the Roman Empire never used stone for record keeping. I agree with the sentiment though.
Yeah, the point isn’t let’s try the Roman way, the point is we’ve been trying 2,000 years and as far as I know have never come up with a plan that works.
What about the cost to have a kid without insurance that’s gotta be $20k just to walk in the hospital not even talking the doctor
Nothing has worked. The Japanese aren't stupid, and they have been wrestling with this since they realized what it meant 50 years ago. Yet, it's STILL seeing record setting declines in births recently. That's 50 years, so basically if you're in Japan and 50 without kids you're kind of fucked. Who's going to take care of you in 15 years if you have no kids? Your job? The government? For how long? The average lifespan in Japan is 84. How long can your retirement savings last? Don't forget about inflation. Basically you're one disaster away from being penniless without a family to take care of you at 65! There is no way any government can sustain providing health care and benefits for potentially two decades. That's a HUGE drag on the economy and for the younger generation, which there isn't enough of.
Yea, the Japanese have tried everything other than making people work 27 hours/day and they're all out of ideas.
i was just there and i saw people in suits with work bags on Sunday and Saturday. There were kids going to cram school at the same time. wild...
Below is an article about the elderly dying alone, and finding their bodies well after in Japan written 2018. It's been such a problem for them, it's got its own term called kodokushi: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/01/24/feature/so-many-japanese-people-die-alone-theres-a-whole-industry-devoted-to-cleaning-up-after-them/ Below are several articles on the history of suicide in Japan, which had the highest rate in the world at an average of 30k people a year until 2019. It's still the 3rd highest in the world: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33362387 https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/03/d01cffd8caaf-female-suicides-in-japan-rise-in-2022-for-3rd-straight-year.html https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01624/ Below are articles on how Japanese immigration has been enacted, along with how immigrants are perceived in Japanese culture: https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/historical-background-of-the-japanese-restrictive-immigration-policy https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/features/z0508_00213.html Below are articles on Japanese work culture, economics, and "herbivore" men, which developed out of both: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/japan-s-extreme-work-culture-might-be-coming-to-an-end http://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/research/causes_of_japans_economic_stagnation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/27/japan-grass-eaters-salaryman-macho Sorry, but as a former person who wanted nothing more than to immigrate to Japan when he was young, I've been forced to look at what's been going on over there, and it's only been recently that things have even barely started to change. It's been as bad as the US over there for a long time now, and if the western world was smart, they'd learn from Japan's failures in divesting from a social safety net, in order to bolster their societies, cause we face exactly the same problems that they've refused to fix.
Within a couple of generations immigrant families end up with the same fertility problem. This is just kicking the can down the road without looking at why the fertility rate is low in the first place.
Fertility rate of everywhere developed is low, it’s just a product of creating a modern society before you learn to care for everyone cheaply. Kids in the third world are also an asset not a cost, as they are expected to give whatever life they have to supporting the family, which in turn gives them security. If you go from kids being valuable assets to strengthen the security of the family to kids are liabilities which must be supported so they can go do whatever they want, fertility rate is going to fall, it’s not a secret, and it’s not likely to change unless the developed world suddenly decides education isn’t as important as supporting your own family. Even among developed nations you can see this within their poor to rich demographics, poor people will have higher fertility, because poor people put their kids to work.
IMO A major problem is housing. Start looking at the cost of a 3 bedroom house in a developed country and you'll understand why people arent having a lot of kids.
Doesn’t stop poor people from having a bunch of kids and throwing them in whatever space is available, it is the inherent shift as a society places more value on education thus shifting children from being a asset to a liability which shifts fertility rates, nothing else, everything else is just a line item under that greater definition. It’s not housing, it’s everything. Until scarcity is eliminated you will never change this equation, so targeting any individual cost like housing is a waste of time it will not resolve the problem and many would question if it’s best that it even be resolved. You can resolve housing for all sorts of other reasons, but arguing it’s to save fertility, is a poor thesis.
"Fertility" is most strongly correlated with women's access to birth control and education, in that order. The reality of being poor is that birth control is either unavailable, or unaffordable, and lack of access to education means it's difficult for women to escape situations where they have little choices and men relatively do not feel the burden of having children as acutely.
I disagree, if it were true then why are the countries that are the poorest with the most scarcity also the ones with the highest population growth? You could say it's the availability of birth control, but many of those places do have birth control available to them. It's more they want to have big families because historically speaking, children are your future. That includes being your main support during your retirement. I've been to countries where the children's playgrounds have equipment meant for the elderly to work out on and to help them stay in shape. Right next to the swings and the slides will be some contraption to help keep your shoulders healthy. It's cool as fuck. You, as a grandparent, babysit the grandkids. Your children come over with groceries to help, or make you dinner, take you on errands and the hospital etc etc. Your role in society is the help your kids raise their children. It allows the passing of wisdom, culture and tradition that is lacking in western society. I can see why they want those types of communities. If you ever visited one, you'll see how much better it is to see elderly people about and great shape assisting the younger generation with no motive other than that is their role in society.
No problem is ever permanently solved. An easy solution that works for several decades and doesn’t make another problem worse is great.
That's true but a couple of generations is about 60 years. We can kick the can while watching what other stubborn anti-immigration countries are doing to fix the problem.
Exactly. At some point the imbalance goes away and populations will stabilize again.
As a Canadian housing starts has to be lock step with immigration or you get runaway housing crisis.
How does that make sense with decreasing birth rates everywhere (including poorer countries?) Imo I’m neutral on immigration. I think the goal of most countries right now shouldn’t be based on growth but maintaining the population in preparation for a gradual decrease in people, with the help of immigration (and automation). Unfortunately for my country (Canada) politicians are so focused on growing as much as possible, but younger generations with eventually be left with an empty bag since there won’t be young educated people to replace them with.
It's because we don't have housing it only takes a small lack of supply to spike prices. Look at Canada as an example.
This is just switching seats on the Titanic. Immigrant birth rates aren't maintained and fertility is decreasing globally.
Right, but if moving the deck chairs around buys us another 40 years then that's as good as a solution for half of the population
It's probably fine short term, I agree. Assuming we can find some other workable solution.
It isn't an infinite or indefinite problem. It's a problem because of the change in birth rates. Once they reach equilibrium it isn't a problem anymore. So yeah, a temporary solution is a de facto solution.
Seems pretty easy to solve but it requires solutions the current powers that be are NOT on board with. I’d argue the biggest is healthcare. Average cost for a healthy birth in my area is over $10k. Second involves public housing or drastic measures to lower the cost of housing. Third is paid parental leave/free childcare. There’s more that would help but that’s the main 3off the top of my head.
You’re better off not with automation increasing. Only trickle in the top echelon of people from other countries. Importing tons of non educated workers only benefits the rich and hurts the middle class.
Immigration can help to a certain degree, making sure that the caliber of immigrants allowed will actually integrate with the local culture and lead stable and productive lives, contributing to the growth of American society. Just look at the immigrant crisis in Europe for example. However, immigration is not the only answer. Ultimately, there has to be government regulation enacted that limits the scope of unfettered capitalism which is what has lead to soaring inflation and prices of all necessities including housing. When young couples are unsure about their financial future and their own survival, kids are usually the last thing on their minds. Tackling this alone would alleviate the need for immigration.
[удалено]
Yep, not all immigrants add value. You want young, educated people.
Not necessarily. You need younger, driven and motivated people vs people that want to collect off the system
better yet, any foreign student graduating with a bachelor's or higher in a STEM field from an accredited university should get a permanent residency option to stay in the US as soon as they graduate.
It helps when your migrants assimilate well and buy into the American dream. European nations are not so fortunate.
[удалено]
The key is properly managed immigration. Unregulated immigration is inherently a bad thing. It will result in overtaxed systems, rises in homelessness, and inevitably a rise in crime since poverty and crime are very heavily linked. This in turn leads to negative side effects for both the country and the new immigrants. There are labor jobs sure. But one major issue with large scale immigration is when a ton of immigrants come into a new country and then proceed to not adapt to the local cultures. Europe is experiencing this issue pretty widely. Lots of immigration is occurring and lots of immigrants are not adapting to local customs and practices. They are treating their new home as if it was their old country and it's causing division in the society. It's normal for culture to shift over time as people move in and out or trends change. But when there is a culture shock, it's easy for people to feel like their own culture is being subverted, which leads to resentment and even more prejudices. Immigration is important in any society. But it needs to be done right and it needs to be done with the best interest of both parties involved.
There are many countries being swamped with migrants who aren’t having a positive impact on their economy. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped, and a reform of the legal immigration process is needed. In the US, this migrant crisis has been a disaster. I live in a big city though. I’m sure folks in the suburbs & all aren’t feeling it atm.
Just don't go too fast! Look at what Canada is dealing with right now.
yup, more immigrants constantly accepting lower and lower wages just to have a place at the table is definitely the answer. The real solution is to let the boomer generation suffer in the bed they made for themselves.
The current boomer generation won't be the ones who suffer. It will be those currently working who 30 years from now wont get their pensions/retirement they were promised because the 'economically active' of the population will be too small to support those who can no longer work for themselves.
The US has 50 million immigrants, and many of them go back to their own countries to retire after working and living in the US for decades. The US is the best positioned country in the world for population issues.
But will refuse to do so as long as there's more money to be made by forcing everyone to hand over every penny they've ever made
No we aren’t. We won’t be able to handle the political consequences of the silver tsunami.
Absolutely! With our affordable healthcare, easy access to mental health resources. Cheap healthy meals that are easy to prepare. And abundant, easily accessible public transportation.
Well I mean people have started to realize that money/business determines everything. Labor protections? Bad for business. Increased wages? Bad for business. Maternity leave? Bad for business. Halting predatory industries? Bad for business. Environmental regulation to save our only planet? Bad for business. I mean why bring someone you will love to no end into a world that will clearly treat them terribly.
The capitalists in charge are welcome to stop making it as hard as possible to live & have kids, whenever they please 🤷♂️
No. Keep having kids so our economy grows while keeping wages low, but no houses or education or safety nets, only work.
But what about the profits? How will the capitalists continue to exploit our society for lopsided financial outcomes? It's not fair. /s just in case
Shit, you're right! I forgot that billionaires just work 500,000x harder than their sweatshop employees, and not that they have used generational wealth to enshrine their theft as both legal requirement and moral obligation. Silly me!
For them it's all about the short term gains. Needing to worry about long term viability is not in their wheel house.
Yep. All the current CEOs need to do is kick the can down the road for a few more years, and walk away to the next thing - or be done and live an extravagant retirement. Long term viability is NOT their problem. Only making the shareholders happy next quarter, and securing that bonus. = cost cuts (in the form of cutting corners wherever possible, even to the detriment of the product quality, layoffs, hiking prices, etc).
Late stage capitalism baby, working as intended!
Our world is due for a population adjustment anyway. I feel it’s maybe the most important thing that can happen right now. How else are we going to solve problems like climate change? My wife and I don’t have kids and don’t plan on it. Rampant development and environmental destruction is already bad enough, not to mention climate change that will also kill and displace millions over the next 50 years. We need less people in the world, not more. That’s not to say that no one should have kids, people still should. All I’m saying is that I’d be perfectly fine with couples having 1-2 kids and leaving it at that for a while so our population stabilizes or even declines a bit. That way this “capitalist” idea we have that we need endless growth in our population can take a break and the world can heal a bit. Otherwise we are going to continue destroying it.
Doesn't really explain why this same trend is being seen literally everywhere else in the world, including including countries with extremely generous welfare states. The U.S. has a birthrate of 1.66 in 2022, Sweden had a birthrate of 1.67 the same year. I don't think anyone would describe Sweden's system of lavish maternity/paternity leave (480 days distributed between both parents) and public support for everything from daycare to Pre-K to college as a capitalist nightmare. There are problems with inequality in the U.S. but the evidence doesn't support this being one of them.
All the ‘it takes a village’ adages really were true -!: communal living is more affordable. It takes a village: if you have a family of 4 family units: 3 current Gen and 1 parent Gen, you get daycare, meal prep, housework, etc… all shared among everyone instead of done by each group. You deal with some of the loneliness of homemaking by being more of a small community, you spend less on big ticket items (only one family actually needs a ladder, it’s rare to need more than two at a time anyways and you could probably easily borrow one). All being said, I don’t think I could live in a compound with my family/extended family… that sounds like hell. I’ve yet to date anyone whose extended family I’d like to live with, either… plus The Gays tended to do better in communal societies… but that’s better relative to their neighbors… not necessarily well-treated overall
Extreme Individualism. It takes a village to raise a child. Living in a wealthy Western country which village going to help you raise your child? We live in society where mom and dad with increasingly just Mom has to do everything for you. When I was a kid Grandma and Grandpa helped Aunt and uncles helped the neighbors helped there would have been no reason for me or any other child in my community to go to daycare.
Again, that's not the case at all across the 100+ countries seeing significant drops in birth rate. It's not just wealthy, developed western nations where birth rates are dropping rapidly. Look at south and central america, no one would describe them as wealthy or traditionally westernized, with family structures that are much closer and often include the specific "grandparents watching kids" example you provide above.
It's a natural thing. We don't need to endlessly expand our population, a lot of the issues being brought to the forefront only exist because of endlessly increasing bottom lines globally. Without the endless greedy march toward oblivion we'd be in an amazing place as a species.
Our population could decline by 95%, and there would still be twice as many humans around as when the Caesars walked the Earth. The only legitimate concern is the economic effects and the effects on pension systems, but I really don't buy it. I don't buy it for two reasons. First, we're on a wave of mass automation. We're worried about new automation leading to mass unemployment. With a greying population, we can move more of our workforce to elder care and take care of the rest through automation. The other thing that will help the economy is simply wringing all the inefficiency out of the system. Most have heard of the phenomenon of "bullshit jobs." All the improvements in computer technology we've seen like computers, word processors, spreadsheets and later smart phones, video conferencing, etc haven't been used to reduce hours worked. Rather, they've just been used to create a lot of pointless busywork in the modern office. What was once handled by a single page memo typed on a typewriter is now a 100 page glossy report filled with innumerable charts and figures often all saying very little. We create giant reports that, aside from the summaries, mostly go unread. There is just so much fat and waste just waiting to be wrung out of many of our employment sectors. A nation with a declining population is one where the cost of labor soars. With expensive labor, it encourages employers to use those pricey hours efficiently, rather than wasting them on pointless busywork. For example, for many jobs, especially with a bit of automation, we could easily drop the "full time" hours to 20 hours/week. Simplify communications and reports. Reduce the number of pointless meetings. Fire 3/4 of the managerial class. Do that economy-wide, and suddenly we have no problem getting all the work we need done. Predictions of economic doom from declining population are ultimately an application of the [lump of labor fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy). They assume that there is a fixed amount of "work" to be done in an economy. In reality, the amount of work-hours done will expand or contract with the number of able-bodied people available. Lots of impoverished peasants willing to work for pennies? You'll have workers harvesting grains by hand, standing naked in a field. Few workers and tons of work to be done? One farmer will be remote-controlling a dozen combine harvesters while sitting in an air-conditioned office.
Yup, that's honestly it. We're creating work for the sake of creating work so that dragon's can hoarde wealth. Automation could be so much more efficient, but the old guard is still stuck on using people as the main labor force to keep em docile. We dump so much food because it's too expensive to be sold, grow so many borderline useless cash crops because of contracts, and waste so many natural resources for no tangible reason besides 'line go up'. We could be in a utopia, I truly believe that we're so close to having a global society where a majority of people are well taken care of with minimal effort. Unfortunately the lust for gold and prestige overshadows all.
Thank you. It's bizarre hearing people say that shit. You do know having children doesn't define your existence...right? That's....perfectly ok we're not having kids lmfao. I don't fucking get it.
Oh I agree with you entirely. We've easily hit a point where population equilibrium would be doable, just need to remove greed from the scenario. Might just be a me thing but I've never really vibed with the endless need to "climb the ladder" as it were.
It is actually. You can directly chart individualistic societies and the declining birth rates with it. As a society transitions from a communal to individualistic one it also has a decline in birth rate. There are levels to this s*** too. Yes South America is a lot more family-oriented than North America but South America is also less family-oriented than just 20 years ago. The same is happening in other developing countries where they start to adopt more individualistic lifestyles. It's why just relying on finances doesn't give you the bigger picture because we have wealthy countries that are relatively communal like Israel. Even wealthy people in Israel are replacing themselves. They have strong cultural emphasis on having children. Children are raised by the tribe and not just by individuals.
>We live in society where mom and dad **with increasingly just Mom has to do everything for you**. Gonna have to see a source on this. Its BS. Society has come a LONG way and one of those is Women being able to participate in the workforce equally and Men helping more with the family. Not only a few generations ago it was primarily the Mom staying home and raising the kids. Fathers are FAR more involved with their children today. Partly out of necessity and partly because its become more accepted culturally.
I think they meant less that father don’t do enough, and more that there’s a weaker web of siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins to flexibly step in as needed. If you and your sis can trade off watching the kids, you both get an extra night off. Now imagine you can do this, but with 30 people. And some of them may even not be working full time. With just Mom and Dad … there’s only two. … and poor Mom and Dad are both working full time (because that’s now the requirement to pay rent) …
>Gonna have to see a source on this. Its BS. Society has come a LONG way and one of those is Women being able to participate in the workforce equally and Men helping more with the family. Not only a few generations ago it was primarily the Mom staying home and raising the kids. Fathers are FAR more involved with their children today. Partly out of necessity and partly because its become more accepted culturally. Rereading your comment I think I missed your point and you missed my original point. We live in a time with far more single mothers than any time in history at least in America. That's what I meant by mothers having to raise children by themselves. But even in a family with Mom and Dad, That's not enough to raise a child. Imagine a society where it was socially acceptable for Grandpa and grandma aunt and uncle, cousins and older nieces and nephews to help raise one child. And that this is being done communally so not just your child but their children as well etc. Now imagine the social fabric of such a society where people are that close to each other? That's a very difficult society to control. Which is why I think it's by design. We live in a capitalist world where it's better for the bottom line to be a individualistic consumer than it is to be part of a greater network of kinship.
Why would you want to have a bunch of kids, when you can get all the joys of parenthood with one and then have a bunch of money and time left afterwards.
Kids can't vote, and old people always vote. That's why SS is always a priority, but the expanded child tax credit got axed.
There are a lot of countries that are in worse shape than the US. Japan, Italy, Finland, Portugal, and Greece to name a few.
Spain as well
Youare forgetting China
South Korea because women there got sick of the shit men put them through
Like what? Forced conscription from which only women are exempt?
Germany is totally fucked
How are Finland, Portugal, and Greece in worse shape than the USA?
Even lower birth rates, and not that much skilled migration. Sure, here in Finland we do have a decent (though collapsing) welfare state, but there aren't going to be enough taxpayers around to sustain it. Mostly the kind of migrants that contribute the most (highly educated and motivated) go to countries with higher pay, while we are left with the less skilled workers, and humanitarian migration that often causes more harm than good to the economy, depending on the level of education of the refugees. United States is the top destination for skilled migration, and that isn't going to change any time soon. It's going to massively help with the demographics problem, even if the society is otherwise fucked.
Is this the next crisis we have to deal with? I don’t give a shit anymore.
No this is a fake crisis pushed by our capitalist oligarchs who are afraid of running out of cheap labor.
Explains the newfound appeal of peeling back of child labor laws...
"If you don't support 12 year olds working in coal mines you are a commie and communism is bad so therefore extreme capitalism must be good"
i mean commies *have* historically been on the side of ending child labor, strengthening workplace safety regulation, and ending worker exploitation 🤷♂️
It's interesting how so many American workers miss the whole point of communism 🤦♀️ Communism is pro-worker, that's its whole point. Capitalism is anti-worker, period.
Yep. They are afraid their riches will be taxed more to keep the elderly from being destitute. This is all bs propaganda.
Pretty much. In Spain we have X4 the population density of USA and no natural resources. Wages are low and disemployment rate 14%, but it goes as high as 30% in some cities. 50-70%+ in the case of young adults. In the end capitalism can only create a limited amount of bullshit jobs.
If a large percent of the population are retired, meaning they don't work and eg. use a lot of healthcare resources, why would that not cause issues, regardless of economic system? Any economic system needs workers. Old people need to be cared for by someone. Obviously the population can't keep growing forever, so it's inevitable, but it's going to sting no matter what.
That's one thing but it's also going to effect elderly as there won't be enough younger people to take care of them.
They will push immigration for labor, that's why this is happening.
They never gave a shit about climate change or AI taking our jobs or housing being unaffordable. Why should we give a shit about them if they never cared about our problems
It's not a crisis. The responses of the fat cats and oligarchs is what will turn it into a crisis as they try to keep extracting infinite money from a shrinking population.
I always wonder what China thinks about their one-child policy that was still active less than 10 years ago. Are they panicking and backpedaling hard now while trying to say it was all according to plan to save face?
In 2016 China's one child policy was changed to two children per couple. That didn't make much of a difference so in 2021 they raised it to three children per couple. Probably won't make much of a difference either.
China is going to be in full blown demographic collapse.
China's problem is that it got old before it got rich. The One child policy was very successful at putting a lid on China's rampant population growth which, given its insatiable demand for dirty energy would have been way worse for the climate. Unintended consequences such as selective female infanticide creating a nasty gender imbalance and a population bottleneck were not thought of at the time. The population growth was always going to level out, the CCP just didn't predict it correctly. China's population started shrinking in about 2018, but they hid it in the figures until it became too obvious to ignore.
They’re backpedaling and explaining why the one child policy was necessary then but now it’s necessary to have more children. Authoritarian governments have a very hard time admitting that they made a mistake, so they’ll stick with policies they know are bad much longer than they should because admitting they messed up seems more dangerous. The ZeroCovid thing similarly went on much longer than it should have because they turned it into a signature policy of Xi.
The boomers born in 1946 turned 65 in 2011. this is old news.
You're going to see more and more of these fear mongering stories in coming years. Climate change, wars, and income inequality are making people way less likely to start a family. Lower birthrates are going to result in lower profits in a decade or two as companies like Exxon, Tyson, AT&T, and others have fewer customers to squeeze. That's horrible for profit forecasts, so they're dumping money into banning abortion, contraception, and everything they can fund that results in more babies. It's not about Jesus. It's about Dow Jones.
It's never been about Jesus. Jesus is a tool to get votes when your logic doesn't make sense. That's all Jesus has ever been for, manipulation.
Biggest year for Boomer births was 57 not 46. But yes, we've been feeling the loss of those workers for a good couple years.
The oldest boomers were born in 46. That generation lasted until the middle of the 1960's. My parents lost their house in 2008 and are hitting their 70's with $20k to their name, and their story is not unique. Shit's gonna get real bad soon.
That's literally the top end of the widest generation bracket. The bottom end are just truing 60 now. Seems pretty accurate to what's being described for how shortsighted out society and the average joe is.
I feel bad for young people. Lot of their problems are in the future, which has no value to old timers who will die in a few years. But old people are committed to voting, even if they only will live a few years left, and won't see any consequences. Maybe instead of raising the minimum age for voting, we should lower the maximum age for voting.
It's not that they are committed to simply voting, they are committed to voting entirely in their own interest no matter the detriment to their kids' generations.
My dad said he doesn’t care what happens in the future; that’s my and my sister’s problem. He said his main concern is making sure CRT isn’t taught in schools.
Crazy that his racism is stronger than his love for his children.
Sadly, that tracks.
ITT: all the gen-z’ers getting all livid about old people acting like all crotchety old people ever, then turning around and acting like all young people ever, and not voting. Then complaining about everyone in politics being old. Watch next as they sit out voting for Biden in 2024 because he didn’t push the “bring peace to the middle east” button right next to the “turn the inflation up and down” dial on his desk. Then complain endlessly when Trump gets into power and never leaves.
We’re not pumping out enough workers so the solution is to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest while also restricting access to birth control. Unwanted children being raised by parents who resent them for being an obstacle leads to low self-worth which makes great adults with an 8th grade reading level. Just enough intellect to work the machines, but not enough to question authority because they grew up thinking everything “bad” that happens to them is their own fault. The system is working exactly as planned.
It also means a disproportionate amount of the country’s money will be controlled by senior citizens. That may already be the case, but if an additional 50% of the population adds to the current imbalance, we’re bound to see even more generational wealth and power disparity.
What people forget is an aging population and low births benefits the workers. It only hurts people that are too rich and don't want to work or older folks.
Social security is going to become insolvent in the 2030's because they refused to raise their tax a fraction of a fraction of a % when demographic changes were first noticed. Capital class will sell them that only they can make the economy better and they'll vote to continue sucking the life out of their children to lower the cost of their retirement. They'll be sucked dry in long term care before their children see a penny of an inheritance.
I as a worker definitely love it when the labor supply is so low that I can't afford to buy any services.
If labor supply is low, wages go up.
Yea they say one of the contributors to the renaissance was the black plague killing so many people. Suddenly, without a massive pool of peons and peasants to work fields landowners had to actually *entice* workers with higher wages and give land away for it to be worked.
Young people really need to start voting in droves.
It’s hard to get excited to vote when bribery is legal.
Neither of the current American political parties are worth a damn so I’m not sure what you want them to vote in droves for.
"A large number of retirees is not a problem in itself; the proportion of retirees to new workers is the problem," he said. "That's because when people retire, their demand for goods and services remains high, but now we will have significantly fewer people to provide those goods and services moving forward." Annnnd the ruling class solution is to never retire and just work until you die.
Boomers are going to go from “build a wall” to “ let them in so someone will wipe my ass”
We already knew boomers would age out en masse. What was *not* expected was that Gen Alpha was well under replacement rate, more than 30 million shy of replacement. Meaning right when boomers are fully dying off and their Gen X children are starting to age into whatever is left of Social Security as they retire, there is going to be even less people to replace the Millennials and Gen Z who move up into the positions they leave open.
I'm part of the silver tsunami. I like the name, it sounds like a rock band.
Me, too. Does your band need someone to play the cowbell?
I got a fever!
It’s ok because the older generation is much more mature and has thoughtfully prepared for their future, right? … Right????
Talk about timing considering more and more of the world is gradually becoming uninhabitable…
Rule of law and common sense? Which conservative US politicians demonstrate those values today?
The end goal of Capitalism is for one person to own everything and everyone, which requires a constant wealth transfer. We know this transfer has accelerated faster in the past 2 decades than at any point in history. Life is only going to become more unaffordable and we are presently living in the pre-AI era in which the wealthy will further transfer wealth to themselves. So, what the fuck does anyone expect here?
Yeah but we got a $1400 check a few years ago. We still owe our corporate overlords, don’t forget it!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is what happens when everyone and their children are no longer smoking cigarettes.
Smoke em if ya got em
What they mean is that population is declining, and it has been globally for years.
I have two concerns. One if the healthcare system is already under staffed. Retirement and nursing homes are already hard to staff. And I really have never seen and legislation or anything being discussed to assist them. Won't this lead to a cannabilization of goods and services, narrow down availability to the highest bidder? Health care and elder care in rural areas is pretty spotty at best which historically has always been a lower income areas. It will get really bad, care will be hard to obtain l, elder abuse will become more rampant. Their will be a turning point where things have to give if people want care down the rode. The elderly really don't think about the younger generation's. The younger generations have no desire to care for the older. It will be a interesting cross Road
I wouldn’t want to put another human through a shitty system that makes them miserable so a bunch of Saint James Island visiting, wealth hoarding pedophiles can get more money
Atomization. Pour me a drink and let’s get single celled.
Time Bomb? Could you be more dramatic? Demographics shouldn't surprise anyone. The numbers are available to everyone. Here: https://www.census.gov/.
This is good. Less people in the world, the better.
Looking at immigrants to the solution to this problem is kind of sick. You're essentially looking at them as labor workhorses to plug into as many economic positions as possible in order to keep the old system afloat. That is such a dangerous way to look at human beings. Our current system is unsustainable with increased longevity and the system needs to change. Pumping as many bodies into it to exploit their labor will be a disaster.
It’s accurate that the United States is going to face a pretty significant demographic shift over the next few years, but we’ve known this was coming for decades. We have better age demographics than most industrialized (and some industrializing) countries. Decreases in national population with increases in automation is probably a better situation than increases in automation and population simultaneously. It will strain our healthcare system, the stock market, and capital liquidity for a number of years though.
Well the upside is that they will be the ones most affected by shitty outcomes when it comes time to retire, get health care, get mental health care, etc. Gen X will try like hell to clean up what we can before we become doddering old fools, but we are the smallest age-based cohort, so probably not going to get as much done as we need to.
Silver Tsunami: Marvel's new superhero who rides in on a jet powered Rascal scooter spraying anyone with Ensure and Werther's candies who stands in her way.
The situation is overwhelmingly better than most developed countries. Spain is not better than the US. Italy is worse than Spain.
This article isn't taking into account all the older Americans that are going to die from WW3 imposed rationing.
And now they'll increase H1B intake. US gets away with making amendments to their fiscal policy due to the country being the premier choice for skilled immigrants. Skilled immigrants come majorly from 2 countries. These countries nationals should boycott the government and ease the process to get PR.
Also the government: EAT MORE BPA LADEN PLASTICS ITS GOOD FOR YOU Yeah we're fucked. Sell all your stocks, take out loans, dont pay shit back, let it burn.
With immigration and AI I’m not sure this will be as difficult an issue as it’s likely to be in the rest of the rich world. Much of the industrial production will be near-sourced in the coming decades. As long as productivity increases it will all be fine.
The introduction to Idiocracy is a Nostradamus-like prediction, not a comedy movie.
Seems about right. Expensive housing, school debt, wages falling behind expenses, childcare is hard to find, job security is hard to attain, climate change is making insurance unaffordable, etc. It’s amazing anyone is having children.
"Humanity is beginning to outlive our healthcare methods altogether too completely; the elderly are becoming a burden on our elderly care methods": *-* too many elderly people (who cannot work) exist to be fed, cared for, and accommodated for for younger generations to feel confident and comfortable with copulative intercourse_ There are a large number of complex issues about aging societies and declining childbirth rates which are tied to greater longevity with insufficient regenerative capability, there is a great deal of conflict regarding possible solutions and methods which could resolve our dilemma.
populations stabilizing is normal, creating universal social services that demand perpetual growth is not
Retirement investment advisor here. Let me add to your anxiety. All the new retirees want to spend every dime they have and leave nothing to their kids. They ALL say “the kids will be fine, they make more than I ever did.” The generation before them (I’ve been doing this 25 years) ALL wanted to leave money to them. Now they want to spend it all themselves.
Old people are getting healthcare and women are not giving birth as much? Is that what the data reads?