My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am.
I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents.
Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works.
I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.
So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild.
Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.
Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.”
And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.”
For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there.
So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output.
I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output.
Can you describe a system like that?
Taking the example of One brother and one sister, the sister would have to bear 2.1 children, while the brother would have to have 2.1 children with another woman, in order to merely keep the population size level.
The reason for this is obvious: two sets of parents=4 people, the same number as the 2*2.1 children (minus premature deaths, etc.).
So the sister must have 2.1 children to sustain, but the brother’s “contributions” don’t matter.