Hacker News Reader

Comment by jseban | Hacker News Reader

Totally depends on the state of society and what the needs are, China had the opposite policy for over 30 years to achieve a declining birth rate. It's not true that more children = better. It's only an issue somehow for pyramid schemes of the welfare system.

View on HN

Yes, and that policy turned out to be a huge mistake that the Chinese government is now struggling to reverse.

I appreciate having fewer humans to compete against for resources, including carbon emissions.

The process of shrinking to fewer humans is painful however: less people working, more people old and unable to work.

Painful for who? Maybe asset owners and the few deciles below them who live a decent life due to globally cheap labor.

For the young and poor who only have their labor to sell, the situation would seem pretty decent.

Old people need a pension, which is paid by the workers through taxes.

Political will for transferring wealth from certain portions of the population to others can change quickly. Also, the pension amount likely will not keep up with real inflation, as is the case today.

People can just have higher salaries and save for themselves for their pension, just like any other expense they have in life.

There is no practical need for this to be centrally managed, other than you can't trust people to be responsible and plan for the future.

People already manage a big part of the pension savings by themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com