In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle.
The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers.
Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".
1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia.
And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones.
But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had?
I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"?
A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.
Old people retire, opening up jobs for younger workers. Old people die, freeing up housing stock and capital and tax money. And these will happen long before Croatia or Romania achiever maximum productivity. There's plenty of fat left to be trimmed.
As long as the sustained rate of youth emigration is below the mortality rate -- or marginally higher while the country continues to develop -- conditions should improve for working age people (ignoring the chaos of politics).
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your implication or just not thinking this through. Could you elaborate on some of the negatives?
I live in a small town that is almost 1700 years old. Something is very wrong if we are unable to maintain or grow our population while living in unprecedented luxury and wealth compared to historical norms.
I agree that it is sad that rural areas continue to die out -- I live in an island, so I feel this keenly -- but objectively, is that such a bad thing?
Communities don't have an innate right to exist in perpetuity, and it would be an unsustainable resource nightmare if we tried to keep them all alive.
After all, it's because of rural flight that we have huge tracts of natural parks like Velebit. That's a resource that enriches the commons, even if it came at the cost of some individual welfare. It's also vastly better for the planet.
But I feel I'm missing something. What are some more of the downsides?