Social-Media Influencers Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By | Hacker News Reader

Social-Media Influencers Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

wsj.com

70 pointsthm101 comments

Open articleView on HN

Writers Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

Actors Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

Athletes Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

Gamblers Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

Gold Miners Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

Entrepreneurs Aren't Getting Rich–They're Barely Getting By

You can use this same line for thousands of similar professions where there is only space for the top few % to succeed. Most people participating are fully aware of it, and still choose to do so.

Its like the people in a profession make as much as a standard distribution or something or even a multimodal one (extremely high earners, average and low earners).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution

More like a power law (specifically, Pareto distribution). E.g. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/L...

Yes, power law is more appropriate for fan following professions. Multi-modal fits lawyers, MBAs etc.

> where there is only space for the top few % to succeed

Typically these careers have something else in common: individuals at the very top have practically unbounded wealth and a very visible public profile.

That fact is actually the cause of the fact that only the top few percent will have any income at all. In most careers supply and demand stay reasonably in balance as people filter themselves out due to lack of real interest or ability. But with these 'careers' there are enough impressionable young people who see the extreme successes and are tempted by them that the supply of prospective participants far outweighs demand. This leaves the vast majority of hopefuls without any prospects whatsoever.

It also helps if a lot of the most successful people are young (eg sports and entertainment) It helps further the illusion that success is readily available.

This is also known as a "Winner Takes All" market.

But the entire point of the influencer is to flaunt wealth. Others do something.

That's why it's so great to hear they aren't doing well. The delicious schadenfreude.

For certain kinds of influencer that is true. There is a lot more there than just spoiled rich girls trying to get images in resorts with their new Gucci bag.

Plenty of make-up experts, fitness gurus, tech nerds doing CPU unboxing, video game & movie reviewers, political science analysts, etc., that are not focused on flaunting wealth.

I did a study for a Master's degree class on influencers on YT & Insta who only go to spas (like peidcures, massages, etc.), and did ASMRs and Spa reviews -- and just in Asia. While they're reasonably well put together on camera, they're certainly not flaunting great wealth outside of occasionally getting a (fairly cheap) foot massage and cupping treatment -- and, in theory, YT revenue is subsidizing those trips. But some of them get TONS of views and drive actual foot traffic to these locations.

> Last year, 48% of creator-earners made $15,000 or less, according to NeoReach, an influencer marketing agency. Only 13% made more than $100,000.

I'm not sure what the definition of "creator-earners" are, but 13% of them making over $100k a year is pretty impressive.

I would have guessed that percentage to be in the low single digits. I wonder how many are making more than $50-60k/yr.

I would be more interested in knowing the percentage of those who are attempting to make a profit creating content but haven't earned any money yet. I believe on YouTube it's something like only 0.25% of channels make any money.

> I believe on YouTube it's something like only 0.25% of channels make any money.

That's because "channels" is incredibly, incredibly broad. The number of channels has very little correlation with the number of creators, because the number of channels also includes the number of commenters (any number of which could also be creators).

Absolutely correct. I wonder what the % of monetized channels (which only starts at 500 subs) make a sizeable amount of money, say more than $1k a month.

True, I wish there was more information and data on this across networks like that (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, etc). I makes me wonder if this information is intentionally withheld so those who want to make money as a content creator don't fully understand how rare it is to make any money on them.

Exactly. 13% making over $100k is almost exactly in line with the individual incomes of earners in the broader economy.

13% are not making over $100k. Who knows how they define an influencer.

It must be a extremely narrow definition of "content-creator". There is no way 13% of TikTok video uploaders are making more than $100, let alone $100k.

I suspect the panel itself is already the top 1% creators on the platform, and the distribution therein

Also, the data appears to be global. The median annual income of $15k is livable to quite good in middle income countries, and very good in low income countries.

Most likely they filtered out people who made ZERO dollars from their research.

Article is paywalled but I assume that's the reason they specified "creator earners" and not just "content creators" or "influencer"

Much like other fields where one person's work can satisfy an audience of millions?

Most actors, musicians, OnlyFans people, etc., never make it. They're enticed by the few people who make it big into a career where nearly everyone is not making it at all

In the past I have thought about it as you do. But it occurs to me now that this is also a property of tech products, isn't it? These products can be built by a small team and serve millions or billions of people. The most successful ones usually expand the team (Google Maps now employs over 7,000 people!) but it remains true that only a small team is really needed to keep the thing going.

So why are tech employees thought of differently than entertainers? Why is the math so different, such that tech employees have much more predictable and favorable employment prospects?

Many people will do art for very little. Trying to make a living as a musician is hard because of that.

People won't work on Google products for free.

This is one of the many reasons I'm for a UBI, it makes it easier to do art without having to be a "starving artist".

But is that "willingness to do for a low price" some kind of inherent property of artists as a group of people, or does it come from somewhere else? (The "or" here is not necessarily XOR.)

What if it all comes down to supply and demand? Maybe the supply of artists is much greater than the demand for art, while for tech products it is reversed?

This is true in my case. I would not design a network for less than 200€/h, and no way I'd do it on weekends.

But I happily DJ on Saturday in a local club from 10PM to 4AM, help with carrying beer cases, setting up cables and equipment, for free.

That sounds like an argument against UBI. People want the work to be done, but not enough people are able and willing to do it without significant pay? Lots of people want to make art but can't because not enough people value the product?

I haven't made up my mind about UBI, and I do think that it would be valuable to society for all persons to have room to experiment and innovate around ideas (effectively, enable society wide R&D), but I think it's an open question as to whether it is worth the costs.

I already struggle to hire anybody help with fixing the many problems with my house, and it's very inefficient for me to need to learn to become an expert in so many different fields. I quite enjoy it, and there are positive externalities, but having specialists (or just "willing hands") in areas that there is demand for is also quite important to a functioning society.

There is a value in living in a society that is culturally rich, not just GDP rich.

The last era where we had this kind of society, was probably the 70s and we are still recycling the cultural artefacts of that time.

People WILL try to create the next Google for free though.

Fortunately all of us temporarily embarrassed billionaires have a fallback plan. Just a few years ago, in my late twenties I was seriously trying to apply to YC, with the dreams of getting some funding .

Now that I'm a bit older and more discouraged, I've made peace of being a worker bee until I retire. I'm still hoping to get a role with an equity package that allows me to retire sooner rather than later.

The problem you are illustrating is that art doesn't have much hard value whereas google products do.

Maybe because software stacks better.

I have tried solo game dev off and on for years and found game dev exactly the same as all other art forms - You either make it or you don't, and almost nobody makes it.

The difference being that a game is expected to ship all its own assets. The game's exe plays the game's audio and renders the game's graphics and runs the game's logic.

And I can only play one game at a time and listen to one song at a time, so why buy a bunch of games?

But a video codec works on millions of existing movies, so anyone watching _any_ movie needs a video codec. And a VM can run _any_ OS. And a network can transfer _any_ data.

Now we're talking about products that complement each other instead of only competing. Sometimes I've had more fun writing tools, because the sum of my own hammer and a world of nails is greater than trying to make my own nails from scratch.

So ah, don't go into game dev lol. I nearly did, then I got a generic CS degree and made lots of money doing software that solves existing problems and doesn't try to create a standalone world.

Yes. Most actors end up doing it as a hobby in community theatre or as a minor part of a company. Most musicians playing in bars have a job to pay the bills. Most artists make art for their friends or to sell at flea markets.

We're just (re)learning that this rule applies to influencers as well.

Yes, but AI will push this phenomena into many other fields.

Much easier to fake, though. Which makes it look more attainable.

If you’re an actor you’re either in Hollywood movies or you’re not. If you’re an influencer you can buy followers, fake locations, etc. which makes it much easier for someone else to look and say “I ought to be able to do that too”

> If you’re an actor you’re either in Hollywood movies or you’re not.

Being an actor is a gradient, not a binary.

On the one side, you can be a nameless extra, and on the other you can be a huge "face". Most people in movies are not on the side of the gradient that makes tons of money.

It may also make it actually easier for them to "be able to do that too." Being able to fake it may allow many to make it that otherwise would not have simply due to not having the right connections or the right "look."

I mentioned this in a thread regarding AI stealing jobs and got downvoted for it. There seems to be some new expectation that being a creative is an easy job. Lots of finger pointing at AI, Spotify, Instagram, etc not paying enough but you're exactly right. It's easier than ever to get your content out. Not being in the elite few of a creative job seems to be a tough pill for the masses to swallow.

I’ve been online for a long time, am I an old curmudgeon who thinks “influencing” isn’t a meaningful profession? Not too long ago people made videos and shared it for fun, to give back to the world. Not to take in profit.

Many of these people have used and abused their audience, accepting sponsorships from unscrupulous companies like BetterHelp, and portray a way of life that isn’t realistic.

Social media is harmful, I suspect we will look back at it one day and realize it’s the source of a mental health epidemic.

What is your definition of "meaningful?" It's basic advertising from the last half-century redistributed for a new medium. Some are aghast that non-celebrities and -gasp- diverse people are hawking consumer bullshit. The coarseness of the neologism "influencer" grates on others' nerves.

It's just magazines and TV. But in 2024.

Yes, you are an old curmudgeon. Asking people to produce value for their platforms then turning around and expecting them to do it for free is pretty outlandish.

You cannot name an industry where no unscrupulous individuals/companies have sought to make easy money from dubious means.

There’s no value. I didn’t ask them to do anything.

"Influencer" is just a fancy word for "freelance advertiser".

I would argue that it is meaningful, because there has been a shift in people's activities, such that being a freelance advertiser is actually semi-viable. For now.

> thinks “influencing” isn’t a meaningful profession

and marketing is? because this is, essentially, freelance or independent marketing

YouTube channels contain some of the most valuable content on the internet, especially tutorials or explanatory videos. I’ve been able to fix household appliances and work on my car because of content of these creators. While it seems a tough career, I’m glad to see some people are making it work and wish the others well.

Most of the truly helpful practical content that I find on YouTube was pretty clearly produced either by someone who's just doing it as a side project or as a bit of content marketing for their real job as a mechanic/handyman/whatever. There's not a lot of money in any given "how to replace the battery on {insert very specific car model here}" video, so that kind of content still has the feel of the original YouTube, before the gold rush began.

Agreed. I would guess that most of the money is in entertaining, as opposed to useful, content.

I think this also explains why google search results have gotten noticeably less useful.

There's not as much money in providing an answer/instructional content. There's a lot of money in pushing products.

The danger is that if google search/youtube goes too far in the direction of pushing products, users migrate to a different platform that will better serve the less profitable need (relevant search results).

PHP forums and their ilk (including R*ddit) very commonly provide tutorials and clear advice from skilled hobbyists all happy to help newcomers......

....and without 5-10 minutes of video padding and waffle from some "influencer" knobjockey trying to peddle disguised advertisements.

Give me the former anytime.

EDIT: Clearly the downvotes are coming from those indoctrinated into thinking "influencers" provide a benefit!

First, I don’t fully appreciate the distinction between an ‘influencer’ and someone having a Youtube channel as a side gig that posts practical content. Second, I am a forum kind-of-guy too, but I find YouTube channels to be useful complimentary additions to forums. Trying to implement a feature in Obsidian? The forums can help, but a ten minute YouTube video from an organized content creator can be just the thing needed to get the job done right and quickly.

Most of these domains show power law like earnings. 13% making $100K or more is actually fairly healthy and way more than I expected. Also, given that many of these influencers are international, the dollar goes a lot more in many countries and if one were to adjust for cost of living, this would be even more healthier.

> Most of these domains show power law like earnings. 13% making $100K or more is actually fairly healthy and way more than I expected.

Exactly.

Seems like a way better shot at wealth for most people than professional sports.

There's probably many other professions like real estate agent that follow a similar pattern.

That’s revenue though, isn’t it? What are influencers’ costs?

I guess living the lifestyle is part of the benefit but the successful influencers I’ve seen often pay production crews, rent luxury products like expensive cars, travel, and just a ton of little things that add up. That’s not including the promotion costs like paying to cross promote with other influencers and other growth hacks.

I suspect it’s more like 1-2% make a significant profit.

I would suspect its one of those things like driving for Uber where the majority of people don't check the math on their true profit per hour, so there is a lot of churn.. but the truly successful are the ones with rigor in their process.

The luxury product, materialistic worship influencer segment is only a tiny percent of the influencer economy.

For every one influencer posing with a sports car in Dubai, there are a thousand other influencers whose content can be produced at very low cost. Video games, parenting, fitness, beauty/make-up/skincare, cooking, woodworking, gardening, backpacking, dancing, DIY, personal finance, etc all have tons of content creators working from home (or the gym, park, shop, whatever).

I know a woman who started posting videos that were just her holding her cell phone recording a selfie video talking about being a mom. She now has brands paying her tens of thousands of dollars to promote their products, and her videos are still just phone selfies sitting on her couch.

My observation isn't limited to that segment (I've never actually seen any content from them). Attention is finite and eventually each niche becomes a zero-sum game of competing over limited eyeballs. Once it becomes competitive, spending money becomes the best lever available to the content creators.

I don't think this necessarily applies to all influencers like those with loyal followings, but it's a general pattern I've observed.

There's also, depending on what they are influencing, a lot of in-kind payment like free travel / electronics / makeup / clothing or whatever they are promoting/"reviewing".

Most of the stats I've seen is that influencing is actually about 75% female, partially because the ad metrics show women respond to it more strongly. So its unfortunate they mostly highlighted men in the article.

Perhaps some of the people who get into this thought of it (mistakenly) as a job specialization that doesn't have a power-law distribution in income, such as a dentist or a software engineer.

I can't find a public link to the 2023 report, but the 2022 report is linked below and it has some more information. It is based on a survey of 2000 "creators." It says that from their sample: "Over 35% of the creators surveyed have been building an audience for over four years and earn over $50k annually."

https://neoreach.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Creator-Earn...

https://archive.ph/WrZ5L

You most likely won't be an astronaut or a movie star, just like you most likely won't make it as an influencer.

The depressing difference is that more than any other profession, successful influencers look like they could come from anywhere.

But they have to pantomime success from day one - either until they get it, or they give up.

It's a con no one is actually in on.

Great point, this is super insidious.

there probably is a seedy underbelly of pay for play placement, link sharing, and all the other influencer equivalents of shady SEO tactics

There is and it’s largely why most influencers aren’t worth a penny. The majority of them use growth hacks like paying for followers and engagement, which might stroke their ego when numbers go up but advertisers don’t want to pay for exposure to bots. It’s a market for narcissistic lemons.

There is the other side of this I am interested in.

The to advertisers, they’re expendable.

In the 90s, take cute little starlet or rock musician. You invested in them. You grew them. They were pets.

You couldn’t have starlet out there ruining her image, you didn’t want the story about rock star smashing the face of a bell hop to get out.

You invested in their career, their art, tours, signings, albums. You knew they had a shelf life and worked to race the clock.

But now…

They’re expendable. There are more starlets to replace this one ready to roll. They don’t need food and water and belly rubs. They’re cattle and they’ll take care themselves.

And if they don’t? If starlet does a porn with rock star… good for you, or not, who cares? Replace them if you need to. Your invest is low and maybe it works out anyhow.

They’re happy for a minute, you’re happy for a minute.

The customer through… they’re not going to get refined product. They’re not going to get a big time show but maybe see them at bar, or a release-day studio album just a couple over a year songs that were released to patreon members first and Spotify later.

Influencers are cattle to advertisers, and everyone seems to like it this way.

It also extends to IRL, there are mansions you can rent by the hour to film content as though you live there. That's a big reason why so many influencers are in samey giant empty kitchens for their "stupid food" videos where they make a giant mess - it's not their home.

Ditto the above for luxury cars, watches, anything that can be rented for show frequently is, especially when ostentatious displays of wealth are core to the message, like finance/crypto influencers peddling courses or coins.

At the core of this article is that these platforms are setup for you to make a living off them alone. You see more successful influencers shilling vpns, and setting up newsletters on YouTube to stabilize revenue. TikTok has the same problem vine did, the content is short form so it a bit difficult to put a pitch in without making a mini infomercial.

There are certain vocations that, unless you are in the top 0.1%, you are doomed to the life of struggling.

Actors, of course, are a big example - not everyone can be getting Brad Pitt roles. Or restaurant chefs - just a handful run multi-nation food empires, while the rest are shortening their life spans in the kitchen, 12 hours a day without weekends.

Trying to be an influencer is like trying to start a band and aim to be the next Nirvana.

Go to school, kids, learn a real trade, and do the rock band thing on the side. If it works, great, if not - at least you will play guitar.

"More broadly, if you dare to say that it's not a real job, you're likely to be drowned out by complaints and contradictions."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/social-media...

Text-only:

https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1orRCk

We had a Instagram influencer build a huge house across from us at the beach. It has been interesting watching how they present their life online vs what their life is really like. Definitely not my cup of tea. They don't seem to be hurting for money as I looked up what they paid for the two lots they built on. I also know a ballpark what they paid to build the house given its size/finishes/etc. It seems to be a very shallow lifestyle.

https://archive.ph/WrZ5L

Good to see articles like this, even if the air has been coming out of the bubble for a while here.

Some are getting rich while simultaneously destroying their lives. See Nikocado Avocado.

As much as we malign "influencers", we forget that a good chunk of them earn a living service niche interests and are not all insufferable narcissists.

Some of my favourites:

-Joshua Bardwell (FPV drones): https://www.youtube.com/@JoshuaBardwell

-RM Transit (public transit design): https://www.youtube.com/@RMTransit

-Technology Connections (random nerding out): https://www.youtube.com/@TechnologyConnections

-ElectroBOOM (comedic electrical engineering): https://www.youtube.com/@ElectroBOOM

-Practical Engineering (civil engineering): https://www.youtube.com/@PracticalEngineeringChannel

-Mark Felton (war history, mostly ww2): https://www.youtube.com/@MarkFeltonProductions

Are those "influencers" or just "content creators"?

“Influencers” is usually a euphemism for “content creator that produces content that I don’t like”

I think "influencer" specifically implies someone who gets paid to shill for brands (or aspires to, once they build a following). You're not just "creating content", you're "influencing" public opinion.

Early in the internet era, advertisers realized that personal testimony (e.g. from online forums) is trusted more than advertisements. So of course the obvious step was to make advertisements that look like personal testimony.

Both, really.

Some of it (in particular the history stuff) is pure content creation, for sure. Others give product recommendations, reviews, etc.

I think the key difference is they have influence because of the content they make in that space. Whereas a lot of these influencers are just talking about themselves the entire time.

Good. I hope we return to a time where people made stuff because they want to. Not because they see it as a payday.

I think you’re describing most jobs.

That's naively optimistic. Many many jobs are only done for money and no gratification - think cleaning, serving, maintenance of many things (electric/water/internet infrastructure), bus drivers, security etc etc etc.

Nobody grows up dreaming they'll work at McDonalds, and nobody _wants_ to work at McDonalds. They want to have a decent salary to live on.

And in general, many people work to live, not live to work. For them the things they _want_ are things outside of work like hobbies, family, etc. and a job is just a means to an end - having enough money to live and do the things they actually enjoy.

While this comment is correct, the OP is specifically referring to creators, not all vocations. This comment doesn't apply. Influencers could easily work at McDonald's but they are choosing to remain online because they presumably enjoy the act of creation.

I think you missed the parent's point. For starters, "making cool stuff" and "holding a steady but boring job" are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps more importantly, being a successful "influencer" seems to require accepting and internalizing a startling amount of personal and societal dishonesty. From buying your views/ranking to shilling products that you would never use, or are even actively harmful. (Like VPNs that are literally anything but private.)

> For starters, "making cool stuff" and "holding a steady but boring job" are not mutually exclusive

They can be, because a decent chunk of the people working steady but boring jobs don't want to "make cool stuff". They want to get money in exchange for their time, that's it. Some people have zero work-related ambitions, or zero ambitions overall, and that's totally fine.

> Perhaps more importantly, being a successful "influencer" seems to require accepting and internalizing a startling amount of personal and societal dishonesty. From buying your views/ranking to shilling products that you would never use, or are even actively harmful. (Like VPNs that are literally anything but private.)

It doesn't require those at all. Many choose those because they're "easy", but as an example, Ray William Johnson didn't make shady advertisements. He made funny videos, tried his luck as a writer/producer/director (I think this is still ongoing but haven't really kept up with him), and now only does short TikTok style videos. As far as I know, outside of a deal to get his series out on Facebook exclusively for 24h, he has no shady dealings/advertisements/etc.

Plenty of people grow up wanting to be a cook though. Usually if you take the “low-status” element of a job away and give people autonomy, the shitty jobs become desirable to someone. Hell, I know kids who want to be garbagemen because hanging off the back of the truck seems fun.

I agree with your point in general. However, it will not be fair to say that nobody wants to be a bus driver or keep the internet alive. Think about train driver in Switzerland who enjoy stunning views every day by doing a routine job daily.

I'm curious as to why you think artists (and other people who make stuff) shouldn't want to get paid.

I write code and I expect to get paid, for instance.

We're talking about influencers here. Not artists.

Do all artists produce works of the same artistic, cultural, and monetary value?

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Spotify -it's all built for accessing at other people's creations, and for exploiting them.

It seems natural that in a world in which you need money to survive people who like to do a thing would like to be able to do that thing for money so that they don't have to do something else to survive.

I agree. An influencer is just a marketing person. It's gross actually that we call these people creators and compare them to artists, musicians etc.

Artists and musicians produce genuine creative work that creates a great deal of skill and creates a lot of enjoyment. They often do this for little or not money purely out of their love for the medium. Meanwhile influencers post photos of themselves with products in order to get you to buy stuff. Or they record clickbaity YouTube videos interspersed with ads from sponsors. They specifically identify themselves as commercially oriented - the term "influencers" comes from the concept of "influence marketing" which has been around for decades and has simply been taken up a notch online.

It's not on the same level as genuine art, which is not there to change your purchasing habits. All the influencer content is "optimized for engagement" i.e. they have thought about how to get you addicted, so you consume it, but you would be better off if you consumed actual art and music instead.

The idea of art being purely a non-monetary activity, and that it is somehow "made dirty" by the introduction of money, is largely a 20th century thing. Most of the people you would likely consider "artists" throughout history created most of their art as commissions, for money, to people paying them to create that work. For example - virtually everything Michelangelo created was paid for by a rich benefactor – and yet I certainly wouldn't suggest that he disliked painting/sculpting or wasn't skilled at it.

No problem with artists getting paid. I do have a problem with people who are specifically paid to advertise a product calling themselves anything other than marketers!

Michaelangelo got paid to produce art, "creators" get paid to flog a VPN. The difference in quality between what the two produce is notable!

This is a pretty simplistic understanding of how modern art/content markets work. Michelangelo got paid to produce images that promoted certain power structures and individuals (the Medici, the Catholic Church, etc.) and not just because his benefactors wanted to create beautiful objects.

Creators get paid for drawing attention to something via the content they create. No one watches them because they are promoting VPN ads. This is not substantially different from a Renaissance artist creating a painting that promotes Catholicism.

If anything, the fact that modern creators are funded in ways explicitly and obviously "separate" from their creative work would imply that the work itself is less bound by patron requirements and more by the (more pure) currency of attention.

In other words, if a creator today made a video in the same manner as a Renaissance painter did, we would likely interpret it as "shilling" or somehow lacking in artistic authenticity.

Then you’re going to have to undo the destruction of journalism, local entertainment, and a lot of other industries that have been eliminated or cut down by tech. People are trying to make money via their blogs because the journalism job they would have gotten a generation ago doesn’t exist anymore.

This should be the goal.

Technology exists in the first place to reduce the execution of unwanted tasks by humans. Universal basic income can help here, while the economical model of the world adapts to the pace of technological advancements.

> Technology exists in the first place to reduce the execution of unwanted tasks by humans

Alternatively, the The Jevons Paradox:

> The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, and the improved efficiency results in a faster rate of resource utilization.

As for this:

> Universal basic income can help here, while the economical model of the world adapts to the pace of technological advancements.

I might be pessimistic, but I don't see universal basic income being a thing in the next decade or so in any developed country. If anything, we'll probably go in the opposite direction with the looming demographic challenges (fertility rates below replacement, leading to an increase in the median age and the % of people working vs people not working, and most notably for many many countries, contributing to retirement/social security schemes).

I'm with you. I'm saying this should be the goal, but i know it's a utopy. A dystopian cyberpunk future is more likely, in my experience with this planet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com