You do what most countries do. You allow skilled immigrants to enter the country and take the hit on the social costs.
They also have the side effect of, in most case, raising the birth rate for you.
They also have the side effect of, in most case, raising the birth rate for you.
What country with a declining population did this and succeeded ?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.ht...
Britain post-WW2, took in a ton of Indian/Pakistani migrants.
For that matter, some people say that Germany currently is trying the exact same with Syrian refugees.
The Syrian refugees are mostly educated, middle class and not only was it a good thing to do from a humanitarian perspective. It's a very shrewd move from an economic one as well.
That's what they're calling mass population replacement now?
I think the native peoples of those countries would take issue with the idea that "skilled migrants"/"colonists" were a good thing for their nations.
It seems bizarre to say we're optimizing for the economic success of the landmass and not the people currently living in it.
see also: taiwan, hong kong.