Hacker News Reader

Comment by xeromal | Hacker News Reader

I talked about this article with my wife a bit this morning and wanted to entertain some thoughts about the future.

What are HN's thoughts on what happens when all populations start trending older and the use of immigrants to stop the decline runs out of steam?

Do the elderly enslave the local young populace to keep production moving?

Does the state try to incentivize the young to have children by offering state care for the new children?

Does childrearing become a function of the state?

Does the world collapse similar to the bronze age collapse and having children again becomes useful for their labor and their ability to take care of the elderly once the concept of 401ks and pensions disappear?

Thoughts? Different ideas?

View on HN

> Does the state try to incentivize the young to have children by offering state care for the new children?

From what I have read/listened-to, efforts by governments to incentive increased birthrates have little effect. This comes from data across different countries like Denmark/Norway & the USA.

Bronze Age collapse seems a little bit much ;D.

My bet is that the culture changes to adapt to the higher proportion of non-working age people. So more younger and older generations will move back in with each other in order to save on the biggest household expense (the house itself) and more welfare is directed towards caring for old people in tandem with the market responding by supplying more private care.

Europeans made it through ~1/3 of the population dying from The Plague, we'll make it through this _much_ less catastrophic demographic change.

> Europeans made it through ~1/3 of the population dying from The Plague, we'll make it through this _much_ less catastrophic demographic change.

Depends on the country, South Korea (if current trends continue) is looking at an 60-80% shrink in a few generations.

Well in 1967 Romania had decree 770 which had a huge impact on increasing the birthrate.

> save on the biggest household expense (the house itself)

Houses will be cheap when there are less people. See akiya houses in Japan: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/unpacking-akiya-th...

Guaranteed US municipalities will condemn/domain large underpopulated areas and bulldoze before allowing housing be anything other than a debt-slave ball and chain. Yes I am that pessimistic.

No reason for doing anything that conspiratorial - today there is plenty of cheap housing that nobody can afford to live in (because of a lack of jobs in the area, those with independent incomes moving there are basically a rounding error).

>efforts by governments to incentive increased birthrates have little effect

We talking paying $24,000/child/year (equivalent in Socal) cash? Or some $4,000/child (once) pittance bonus plus a couple months extra time off at 60% pay? There isn't any gas left in the home-economy tank after a century of inflation and feminism, which is why they're globalizing labor to make up the shortfall! One cow breed is too expensive, fickle, and dangerously aggressive if pushed too hard, so it's in with a more cost effective labore... err I mean breed of cow.

Some “Europeans” thrived after the plague since there was more space for them. Imagine all the farm plots that were freed up.

Now we get to say: look at all this surplus old-age wisdom that we are about to get. In a culture which stows away the old and has no appreciation for wisdom.

I see two possible paths:

* As the population ages, the elderly will pass laws and policies that favor themselves at the expense of the younger. Social services will become more and more of a burden on wage earners - even to the point of unsustainability (as long as those in power as a "ruling" block get what they believe they are owed.)

* As the elder population gradually loses their political power, the younger leaders will pass laws and policies that favor themselves at the expense of the elder. Social services will become less and less meaningful - even to the point of neglect and abject poverty for those who need it (as long as those in power as a "ruling" block get what they believe they are owed.)

Those two paths are not necessarily divergent and are quite likely sequential.

We stand a much better chance by investing in public services like transport and healthcare, planning ahead, and not depending on eternal growth. But immigration is just too irresistible for powerful people to juice their quarterly profits.

Look at the estimated population pyramids for Japan and South Korea. They're looking into absurdities like the active population having to support (as in work for and pay for) 4 times as many retirees.

It is simply impossible for that to work without some amazing breakthroughs in robotics and AI that will enable outsourcing of healthcare and elderly care. And that's just the ensuring the retirees don't die in the streets, what about everyone and everything else? What happens to the South Korean industries as they are today when their labour pool shrinks a few orders of magnitude?

My question is who operates public services like transport and healthcare if 70% of the population is retired and/or incapable of driving the transport or performing the healthcare?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com