This is because of their low birth rate primarily right?
I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
The Japanese faced this earlier and harder than Europe, with about 30% of their population being past the retirement age. They increased their productivity very significantly, but it's still not enough, and a lot of older folks in Japan keep working well past the retirement age, sometimes even re-hired by the companies from which they had retired.
Japan is very illustrative in this regard. Young people are forced into unaffordable cities, where they often live in cramped shoebox-sized apartments. While beautiful spacious traditional homes are decaying just 2 hours away by car.
What can help? Promote smaller cities, by focusing on making smaller cities more attractive for employers. This is already happening with the remote work, and it helps: https://eig.org/families-exodus/
How to make smaller cities more attractive? Put a stop to densification of larger cities, and tax (or cap-and-trade) the office space in dense areas.
This might be true, but could be for many reasons. There's not enough info in that to promote a specific response.
The thing is, there is not much you can change in peoples' behavior. So your only option is to stimulate the behaviors that you want.
The unaffordable housing cost is entirely an artifact of urbanism gone wrong.
If you go outside of big cities, land price is not an issue. At all.
Barrie is still in the general Toronto area, so it's expensive. Sudbury further north that is definitely not a part of Toronto anymore, has very reasonable houses for ~$400k, or 5 years of average household income in Ontario. This is well within the normal "affordable" range, so a 20-years mortgage will be around 30% of income.
The problem is, people _can't_ live in Sudbury because there are no jobs there!
Or people in big cities have plenty of opportunities and interests than just to have children.
People often want to live in big cities due to social reasons, not just due to employment opportunities.
But the current drop below the replacement rate is all due to increased density. If you look at the stats, the urbanization percent stayed flat. However, more and more people are moving into a smaller and smaller set of large cities.
Correlation is not causation. People happily raised children in dense cities for centuries. It was only when the postwar regime of making new housing illegal took hold, and housing prices inevitably spiralled out of control, that they stopped.
> Young people are forced into unaffordable cities, where they often live in cramped shoebox-sized apartments. While beautiful spacious traditional homes are decaying just 2 hours away by car.
Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish.
> Put a stop to densification of larger cities, and tax (or cap-and-trade) the office space in dense areas.
Killing the most economically productive parts of the country is not going to magically make other parts more productive, it's just going to destroy the whole country's economy.
The causes of the population decline are a) women marrying later, or not marrying at all, because they have the option of a career and prefer that b) families that want to give their children a good future having few children, mainly because of the cost of education. Those are the things you need to address if you want to change it.
London is an example of such a city. Its population in 1750 was 750000 people. It was not a "large city" at all by current standards.
> Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in.
Oh, I agree. However, for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities.
> Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish.
Yeah, like "microapartments" where you can cook food while sitting on a toilet. Very well suited for hikikomori, great for raising 3 children!
> Killing the most economically productive parts of the country is not going to magically make other parts more productive, it's just going to destroy the whole country's economy.
It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic.
> amilies that want to give their children a good future having few children, mainly because of the cost of education.
Europe has free (or cheap) education. Yet birth rates are even lower than in the US.
> Those are the things you need to address if you want to change it.
Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate?
And its population in the 1930s, with a healthy fertility rate, was 11 million.
> for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities.
Maybe - bear in mind that building costs are much higher out in the country. But assuming you build a big house, what would you do with it? I guess all the cleaning will help make life less boring.
> It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic.
The pandemic did a lot of economic damage, and many jobs stayed in the cities or are rushing to return there now.
> Europe has free (or cheap) education.
But much stronger womens' rights and correspondingly low marriage rates.
> Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate?
In Japan? Maybe because of all the cash subsidies for moving out with children.
How practical is raising kids in a 20m2 studio? Especially if you've got multiple. I'd bet not nearly as practical as in a house. Plus the recent trend of building lots of smaller apartments instead of a bit bigger and way more practical ones.
The other way around is more difficult to quantify, and a lot of demographic studies look at immigrants from poor countries.
They don’t speak English and I’m not sure if they will assimilate well. I already see street vendors, trash everywhere, and other 3rd world behavior in some parts of SF.
I’m an immigrant from 3rd world. It’s pretty sad to see here.
I don't see how even that helps. What you need to fund basic welfare is a large supply of basic goods (shelter, food, medical care). The basic problem with retirement of a lager generation than subsequent generations is a lack of labor/productivity. Those basic goods don't really respond well to just throwing money from tech companies/rich people at the problem, you need people to work to provide those goods and services.
The only way taxes help is if they discourage "unproductive" economic activity (SWEs and financial planners) so much that those people start working as nurses and construction workers instead.
Setting aside the issues of declining birth rate for a minute, this seems like a reasonable adjustment to the other factors?
Retirement age has not gone up since it was created in 1940s. Not crazy to raise it a little.
Quickly looking at Denmark articles, it seems they’re raising the age to adjust to life expectancy increases as well.
I don’t see this a sign of the system failing.
There was a steady rise in life expectancy at retirement age in the UK until 2020, then something happened and it's fallen significantly. My guess is that it will rise rapidly over the next 15 years and this will be regarded as some sort of triumph for the public health system (unless there is another pandemic of course).
Since 2010, the retirement age for women has raised from 60 to 65. Bringing it in line with the male retirement age.
See https://www.thetimes.com/money-mentor/pensions-retirement/st...
The age (for both) is gradually rising to 68.
Source https://www.gov.uk/government/news/state-pension-age-review-...
The raise to 68 will happen, but it has not happened yet. So, I think to frame my comment as “simply untrue” is disingenuous at best.
Commercialize GLP1s.
Spend it on wars.
The policy for retirement age is related to when society sees fit to sustain someone that does not work. I think it has more to do with how the society sees the elders and what it can afford than to the goals of specific individuals.
My dad just turned 78 and has really slowed the last 5 years. Longer life says little about quality of life.
I've been traveling for holidays every year since I was 25 for at least 3 weeks every year, loving it so much. First it was backpacking, now it transitioned into a bit more luxury as I got older.
You don't know if you'll be hit by a bus next year, retirement is a silly milestone to focus on.
There's the flip side if the coin though: old people are healthier in Denmark (vs US for example [1]) due to the social welfare system. Well, that system needs to be funded. With the aging population, the costs are rising but contributions are (relatively) declining. That's why there's a push for higher retirement age. It's either this, or defunding the social welfare programs, or immigration. That last one isn't a viable political option in Denmark at the moment.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/health/2025/02/05/older-people-are-...
This system was working back in 1860, but it is a Ponzi scheme in decline for the past 50 years. And there is no way out, most people rely on state pensions to live after retirement; it is the perfect trap.
If pensions were funded by actual retirement accounts, where employees invested money into some state fund and have it paid out for retirement this would be entirely unproblematic.
But the pension system in many EU countries is set up in a way in which tax contributions now finance pensions now. This can only work with a steadily growing economy which continually generates more revenue when more people retire. In some sense it is a literal Pyramid scheme, in which the obligations are continually pushed to younger generations, which have to contribute based on how many pensioners there are.
Especially now as EU economies become weaker this issue becomes bigger and bigger.
Denmark has private pensions like the 401k system in the US.
People can start tapping into these up to 5 years before they are 70.
In reality most people will go down in time and partially tap into private pensions and saving long before they turn 70.
This is opposed to other European countries, like Germany, that does not have these private pensions, but only retirement insurance.
Just as in Germany Denmark funds it's pensions through taxes, Germany additionally funds them through employee contributions.
In Denmark you have ratepension, which truly is an investment account and not an insurance product.
Their retirement savings can be in public company stocks instead of government guarantees but that only works if there are people willing to buy those stocks (ex: younger people saving for retirement).
In a world with forever imploding consumer aggregate demand, there is no safe asset.
Productivity gains will also be swimming against the stream because scale advantage will deteriorate in all sectors.
And that's fine because it means consumption is lower too.
Whatever you accumulate for retirement (cash, stocks, gold, state pension points) it only represents coupons for your share of the economy of the future. Details may differ but fundamentals are the same: it a promise that the future generation will share some of their yield with you.
You're talking about a system of pension by capitalization, like in US, which comes with its own problems.
Namely that if you reach retirement age during a crash like in 2008, you're screwed. You have to work 5 more years hoping the market recovers in the meantime, or retire anyway and get way less than you put in.
Hopefully US people realize that this is also how US public pensions (social security) actually works.
And this is the case in all western countries.
It is just being realized in different ways.
Fundamentalle there are 3 ways to cope
1. reduce pensions
2. Raise taxes
3. Decrease amount of benefit receivers.
Denmark choose number 3
The centre right often argue for less taxation ‘to grow businesses’. The argument being that the economy grows and that’s how the money is recouped. At least that’s what’s happened here in New Zealand.
Looking past ones next pay day does seem universally difficult.
Birthrates seem very hard to change and even if change would happen it is much too slow.
Germany did the experiment on immigration and has not seen GDP growth for half a decade. There the system is failing far worse in some ways, but in Germany employees are paying directly for the pension plans, so the state just raises the employee contributions.
Also, the beaurcracy is the real culprit for growth.
The more old people there is the more taxes you need.
More taxes - economy must grow. And it can’t grow if working population is shrinking
I think, if you are concerned with the cultural shift, you can give immigrants temporary term VISAs and make it clear their stay is going to be strictly temporary. That was supposed to be how the Gastarbeiter system works. Thing is, when you have already on boarded a foreign worker and have had them working for you for 2 years already, you don't want to let them go and replace them with a fresh foreign worker who you have to retrain.
You can look at any country in western europe to see how it's not.
[1] https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/35314239/sre...
In the US, Italians, Irish, and Germans, as just a few examples, all were treated as unassmilated aliens. People say the same things, generation after generation about newcomers. If you moved to a country with a different language and culture, you might make an effort to learn the language but you would still think, read, etc. in your native language. Your kids would know both languages; their kids would of course speak the language of their surroundings.
What solves these problems is a fundamental belief in freedom for all. People don't need to speak your language to be your equal and be just as human, with the same rights as you.
Here's Benjamin Franklin (Palatine refers to the Holy Roman Empire or Germanic regions, depending on the source):
"[W]hy should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/02/swarthy...
My girlfriend asked me once in a Restaurant (Cafe Norden in Kopenhagen) why I was ordering in English. Then, I spent the complete evening ordering everything in Danish, to always receive answers in English. And this nearly everywhere (not my bakery, the girls there could not speak a word of English, this was an exception). This was in the early 2000's. This never happened to me in all the other countries I have been living in. A Danish colleague simply told me that he does not like to listen to broken Danish, better switch to English.
Still have a lot of friends in Denmark, integration there is not easy, even for highly qualified people from the EU.
In practice that rarely goes as intended. The first political party to say, "We changed our minds, you can all have citizenship," gets to secure power with an influx of loyal voters.
Before: 5 million illegals or immigrants.
Party A passes law making them all citizens.
After: Party A always wins because large portion of the new 5 million vote for Party A
Conversely, if this hypothetical party had a secret agenda to pass the law when they get elected, but they kept this a secret until then... first of all they will probably lose of voters in the next election. Also, they might find out that former immigrants do not automatically reward this behaviour in terms of votes.
I do not find this scenario particularly realistic.
In America, we discovered basically by accident[0] how to bring in large groups of people and have them be economically and socially productive. Specifically, we had very generous family reunification programs, which outsourced the question of "what immigrants do we admit" to immigrants who had already successfully integrated. Effectively America became an invite system. The end result is that, for basically any background, every American city has a large and established immigrant population from that country for new immigrants to fall back on.
Other Western countries (e.g. western Europe, Canada, the UK, Australia, South Korea, and Japan) didn't do this. Instead, they treated immigration as a transaction: you can't come in unless you have some immediately beneficial purpose, and permanent residency is going to be an even higher bar still. What this gives you is immigration systems that select entirely for disaffected, college-educated workaholic youths with no connections to the local city. To put it in the words of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney:
"America is a melting pot. Canada is a mosaic. In the United States, they don't recognize differences[1]. They don't recognize First Nations. And there will never be the right to the French language."
These words are telling, in ways Carney probably didn't intend. He is proudly admitting that the thing that sets Canada apart from America - the thing that they should fight with military force against a wannabe dictator with annexation dreams - is the fact that they can't integrate people worth a damn.
[0] Family reunification visas were originally intended to deliberately preserve racist prejudices in the US immigration system. This backfired comically.
[1] ...has this guy never heard the phrase 'African-American' before?
So you can reduce pensions, improve the situation for the youth, take efforts to get an improved birth rate, making use of the resources lost to pensioners, and then maybe you can raise the pension later on once you realize things are stable.
I suggest instead altering the male/female ratio, so a stable or growing population can be maintained at lower TFR. Technically, filter sperm to remove those with Y chromosomes before artificial insemination.
Also sexual selection is a thing and I think we were really never meant to have this many men. Men seem good for being really successful or otherwise dying, not much in the middle.
But also, all this talk is purely from a reproductive standpoint. Human societies also need to consider fairness and rights.
Also, that's a wild solution. You'd have to do away with monogamy which would cause some pretty insane societal shifts. However, as a straight guy I can see the appeal lol.
I'm imagining it becoming a social norm for single women to have (at least) a single child. Perhaps they'd team up to make raising them easier, forming loose family-like units. Romantic attachments would be optional.
One consequence of such a situation would be an incentive toward private positive eugenics. Women would prefer semen from top quality donors.
People simply can't afford to send a kid to pre-school childcare because it's 2 or 3 thousand GBP per month. So you have to stay at home to look after them, but then you can't afford the rent/mortgage and/or food because you're not working. Woe betide you if you earn over 1 penny over 100K GBP because then you get zero help with costs.
They need to provide more government funded (i.e. universally free non-means-tested) pre-schooling like they do for 5-18 year olds.
If someone tried to implement it- aside from the obvious problem of authoritarianism- the resulting male minority would live life in romantic "easy mode" so people who want the best for their kids would want male children and rebel against a system more likely to give them female children who would find romantic prospects difficult.
I suppose if someone invented a way to alter sexuality to allow straight women to opt into becoming gay the romance problem could be mitigated, but I'm guessing that this is impossible given the human brain is only so neuroplastic in adult years.
For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
> Between 2001 and 2009, the Muslim population increased almost 10 times faster than the non-Muslim population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom?wp...
Granted 2009 was a while ago but they're still the fastest growing population in the UK by a lot.
If it grew 10x between 2001 and 2009 (starting from a very small base), then between 2009 and 2023 it grew by only 0.3x (see graph below).
So rate of growth went from 10x to 0.3x in around a decade, this is a hugely significant deceleration. It actually implies muslim community as portion of population is heading lower.
https://new.islamchannel.tv/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/63860...
However - if we're including atheist then clearly that'll be the majority position.
* well, not even current. 15+ year old
Stepping back a bit, Pew expects Islam to overtake Christianity as the dominant world religion in a few decades: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/04/06/why-musli...
I don't have a horse in this game - I'm Muslim after all. But I've experienced London pre-immigration boom and post-immigration boom and I definitely prefer the former, like some of my Muslim peers. The fabric of London has already been destroyed, especially when given the fact that London natives have been priced out of their own homes. Given what I've seen firsthand, and what's preached in the mosques of the UK by unleashed and unhinged Imams, the UK is on track to become a Muslim country in 2 or 3 generations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...
The most recent birth rate stats I can find is 2005-2010 where Muslims have a birth rate of 3.0 while the rest of the country is at 1.8. Estimates say it's more like 2.5 now, but the current overall UK birth rate is only 1.57 from a quick Google.
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2...
The same article also states that the average age for Muslims is much lower than non-Muslims as of 2016, 28 vs 41 for the UK.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/...
Maybe not in one generation, but in 2-3 generations, the UK will definitely turn Islamic, especially given the exodus of other communities. The irony is that the well-off British are settling in the UAE en masse, a distinctly Islamic country, and driving property prices up there. It's not that much of a concern since local housing is distinctly separated from expat housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
> the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority)
.. Seems like we've found a fix for ;) I wonder what's the difference between Muslims in the UK vs Japanese folks.
[0] Figure 2.7 of the Danish Government report "Økonomisk Analyse: Indvandreres nettobidrag til de offentlige finanser i 2018" - https://fm.dk/udgivelser/2021/oktober/oekonomisk-analyse-ind...
Also the Chinese immigrants in question, like many others, usually immigrate seeking a better life, it's a strong self-selection filter. Middle Eastern immigrants of last 10-15 years in Europe are refugees, displaced by wars; they did not choose Denmark (or other Western European countries) because they planned to integrate and to prosper there, they ran there to merely stay alive. They need a lot of help adapting. Even if they are very willing to work, they may lack the knowledge required for gainful employment, and there are only so many dish-washing and trash-disposal jobs.
Those who adapt can make it big; consider people like Freddie Mercury or Nassim Taleb.
It is about race, and here is a commenter saying it explicitly, while you know others resort to dog whistles and other workarounds.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44091194
The problem with immigration isn't immigrants, it's racists. Immigration has never caused me any problem at all - it's added a lot to my life and my communities, in fact - and I've lived around many immigrants.
> Chinese immigrants are usually an economic boost
Chinese immigrants were hated and discriminated against for much of US history, going back over a century. You could hardly pick a worse example for your claim.
The US is built by uneducated immigrants - including from China - who came to the land of freedom and opportunity. China was a land of extreme poverty and illiteracy for much of US history (something Western countries had a hand in causing, and I'm very glad for people there that they have so much more prosperity now).
(However, the most prosperous Chinese people are in the democratic areas, Taiwan and, until recently, Hong Kong. It's freedom and democracy, not culture and language that matter. Give people freedom and they prosper.)
It's all just stuff fabricated by racists to rationalize their prejudices. Look at the horrors Europe has inflicted on itself and the world due to these prejudices and rationalizations - the most destructive events in human history. Enough.
Racism is the problem.
And then their children turn out to be some of the most productive and contributory to a nation (in my experience), even despite some of the headwinds.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument re: second generation. I've lived and seen it. Perhaps my lived experience isn't representative but I don't see second generation citizens turning to crime or radicalisation in huge numbers. I see them at work, and looking after their families. I fear the brush you are using is so broad as to, sorry, be useless.
"The study has faced criticism over its methodology, as it only studied rape convictions in Sweden. Experts point to the fact that just a small proportion of rapes in the country are reported to the authorities. Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, dismissed the study as “meaningless” as it only examined figures for convicted rape. “They’ve only looked at convicted people, and they make up a fraction of all rapists,” he told Swedish broadcaster SVT."
Even ignoring the above, I can think of many reasons, statistical and otherwise for the apparent difference. Perhaps you should try using your brain matter to do the same rather than just posting random links.
I repeat: I don't see second generation citizens turning to crime or radicalisation in huge numbers.
Immigrants everywhere come with a language barrier. If you live in the US, very probably your ancestors did. It's the same with every first generation from everywhere.
They actually go lots of places. How are there so many refugees in the US (a good thing)? Canada and Mexico aren't places producing a lot of them.
It's a major issue of international law, as people who are anti-immigrants try to insist refugees stay in nearby countries.
Basically the state spends to much money on humans in general. A young qualified immigrant might have a less negative impact than a slightly older German person, but both of them will be money sinks in the long run.
Statistically immigrants in Germany are less qualified than the general population, so they’ll have an even more negative impact.
The only valid solution is to reduce the spending per person, both birthrate and immigration will only delay the problem.
Denmark should be in a slightly better position than Germany since their health system is cheaper.
I need to see some data backing this. Also regardless of stats, many war refugees(the net negatives as told by media) are actually highly qualified but the asylum process and qualification recognition process is eternal. On top of the trauma and uncertainty, they also need to learn a new language, find a new community, patiently go through all the dystopian meetings, cope with their loss of loved ones.
In reality, it is possible for them to be net positive because if things were faster, they would often out qualify the average locals and this also has some effects on wage and market(over supply, constant demand and all the economics).
> they would often out qualify the average locals
That's definitely not true, which is why they want to immigrate to those countries in the first place.
Regarding your other point: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-new/publications/oec...
The liked pdf there gives a good overview.
No one wants to implement it.
And it makes complete sense. The reality is having a child kind of sucks for a woman, and I, nor anyone else, can blame a large portion of women for just saying "eh... no". I would probably say no, too, although it's hard to tell, because I'm not a woman.
Having children was once a boon, because conditions were shit. Now it's a burden. So, people will treat it as a burden.
Either make it less burdensome or revert women. Nobody wants to do the latter, so we must do the former. We have to invest in children, because children are a Nation's investment.
The elephant in the room that is getting some attention is demographic collapse. It’s been politicized, unfortunately, and seized on by strange people, but the fact remains that we’ve stuck our heads in the sand here. The seriousness of demographic collapse cannot be overstated. Social and economic collapse are inevitable unless something (morally licit, of course) is done to boost birth rates to above replacement rates, or kept at replacement levels. Once we reach a point of no return, it will be impossible to reverse course.
There’s a lot working against healthy demographics. We have decades of alarmist, misanthropic, Malthusian propaganda from types like Paul Ehrlich. We have now a hyperindividualistic culture - politically, socially, and economically - that is hostile both functionally as well as in sentiment toward the healthy function of family, and secondarily the community life it produces, as well as mental health). The logic of consumerism does not sit well with family life, because family life is not something that can be monetized. Consumerism relies on maximizing spending of the atomized individual, and in order for that to work, one must maximize the work done by that individual. Family life interferes with the regime of constant spending and the reign of total work. (Ironically, this makes the celebrated careerism of feminism an expression of this all consuming capitalist drive. It stigmatizes motherhood with demeaning labels like “stay-at-home mom” and celebrates the very office jobs that are the stuff of comedies.) Today, we understand everything with reference to the individual, even anachronistically reinterpreting history according to its alienating categories. Some governments have enacted pro-natalist policies, but they’re typically weak, superficial, and ineffective. We’re addicted to patterns of life formed over the last 70 years that we don’t want to let go of. Governments need to take much more serious measures that drastically favor, prioritize, and protect the family, through and through. Good luck doing that in our democratic societies. Addicts typically change only after they’ve experienced a crisis and hit rock bottom, and by then, it may be too late.
Immigration, of course, is no solution. The belief that immigration can fix the problem is itself rooted in the logic of hyperindividualism, where atomized individuals can be replaced by other atomized individuals to achieve net conservation or even gain according to the numbers. Cultural realities are totally ignored. The rate of immigration that a country can successfully absorb is not enough to outpace demographic decline. Exceeding that rate undermines the whole point of using immigration to compensate for demographic decline in the first place, since mass migrations are always harmful to host populations. You’re basically talking the collapse of the host populace and the formation of new ones in its place. Furthermore, immigration drains the populations of other countries, ones that are likely also facing demographic issues, which basically makes richer countries parasitic and callous about the continuity and futures of other peoples, until there are no more populations to drain of people anymore.
I’m an immigrant, and I think at least where I live in USA we need to stop immigration from any random place or of people who refuse to assimilate.
- increase productivity more than how much the workforce/receivers grow.
And if AI/robots eventually deliver, we're soon going to need a discussion about lowering the retirement age to 55 or even 50 if we don't want 30% unemployment anyway.
- indifferent to how much automation you have, people still need to pay for it, for money they don't earn.
And as such, it feels like labelling that “raise taxes” is disingenuous.
Indeed the normal Understanding is not only about increasing rates - look at Switzerland eg.
But again, there's no basis to chose just your three items in particular.
A part of necessities are access to assets.
In the model you propose, inequality in itself will make those more expensive.
They talk abiut the squeeze, if Birthrates increase too suddenly - workers would both have to pay for the elderly and the kids.
If one generation has a fertility rate of 1 child per woman, the next must have 4 children per woman to undo the demographic change.
The people in the “corrective” generation must support their own two elderly parents plus four of their own children. It becomes practically impossible.
The country and the individual has the same problem. But it also goes a generation further.
There was a link on HN recently which I can’t find. It discussed how we are in an unusual time, where kids can often meet their great grandparents. Previously people died younger, so couldn’t. Now people are having kids at an age where it will be unlikely for them to meet their great grandchildren.
I'm not sure that's true - people died younger, sure, but they also had kids much earlier. Even assuming 18 for first child(and it often was earlier than 18), you'd be a great grandparent at the age of 54 - and people have commonly lived that long even in antiquity.
The average lifespans was only 40-something until the 1850-1950 range.
I’m sure plenty lived longer, but the average was terrible.
"While the most common age of death in adulthood among modern hunter-gatherers (often taken as a guide to the likely most favourable Paleolithic demographic experience) is estimated to average 72 years,[169] the number dying at that age is dwarfed by those (over a fifth of all infants) dying in the first year of life, and only around a quarter usually survive to the higher age."
Etc.
The US since then only provides Israel with military aid (most of which is only allowed to be spent buying US-made goods). It’s more of a subsidy for the US military-industrial complex.
Also despite the military aid Israel still spends a much greater share of GDP on its military than most or all other developed countries (so the US isn't subsidising Israel’s unusually high birth rate).
That's a funny way to twist it. US is providing aid to Israel. Billions a year.
US also provides indirect aid, through protection or aid to neighbouring countries (e.g Jordan and Egypt) as bribes so they play nice with Israel.
And who knows, with the way the Iran thing is panning out, you might be paying a lot more if US decides to bomb Iran on Israel's request
If the US starts sending proportional military aid to South Korea (fertility rate of 0.75 vs Israel's 2.83) it will not "fix it".
The US provides and provided a ton of assistance to Israel but there’s a tendency online for people (probably mostly Americans?) to assign credit to literally everything that happens in Israel to US aid.
Israel exists outside of US-Israel politics and not everything (like birthrates) that happens there is because of the US. The US also supported/aided a lot of other countries that didn’t experience the same economic/industrial/technological development that Israel has in the last 30-40 years - some of it really is because of Israelis’ efforts and not just because of Americans’.
That’s one hell of a disclaimer on the statement.
To me it seems rather obvious: you need both the will and the means to raise 3+ children.
In fact, they may majority be of subsistence in which case the entire dollar value of all of their stuff is simply the land.
The catch-22 is that the people you presumably want to be having more children— educated working professionals— have some of the highest social standards for child rearing.
Increase the number of (young female) immigrants
* In some European countries. Many countries, however, have no meaningful avenues whatsoever for tax efficient pension saving. My own "pension fund" is just a regular broker account where I invest after income taxes, and where I have to pay capital gains as usual.
People with good private pensions can decide to retire 5 years before they officially retire.
1. A state provided welfare benefit Or 2. A privately held long term savings/investment account
Would not be very motivational if you work hard your whole life and then you are considered a useless burden once you retire.
The way it usually works is taxation from the current working generation pays for the current retirees. You are not paying into your own account for later (that is a private pension)
FWIW in the UK there are more children in poverty (so their parents too) than retirees who are in poverty. Kids don't vote though...
What's annoying about these debates is that the people who'd e.g. like to see pension cuts are either young and will change their mind later, or they are so rich that none of this matters to them anyway and the latter shouldn't even have a voice in this debate.
The issue is the "triple lock" (state pension rises by whichever is higher of either rate of inflation, average earnings increases, or 2.5%).
While laudable in intent, recently this has led to situations where pensioners are getting bumper increases linked to high inflation, while the younger working age people are getting stagnant wages while inflation shoots up.
This is is why pensioners are on average getting wealthier than the working population. Let that settle in for a moment: year after year pensioners are getting more wealthy than the working population that is financing the pensioner's increase in wealth.
This is universally accepted as unsustainable and deeply unfair on an intergenerational basis as the pensioners - who generally tend to own their own homes and also get various benefits like free transport and extra money for heating costs etc as well as benefiting from more generous policies/working conditions of the past like free university education and final-salary private pensions or purchasing government-built social housing at steeply-discounted rates, lower tax burden - continue to get more and more well-off while the people financing their retirement are struggling with soaring costs, expensive childcare, high education costs, zero-hour contracts, stagnant wages and all the rest.
Yet pensioners complain that they paid their taxes "all their lives" so they deserve to continue getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, that they deserve to get wealthier and wealthier than the working population, all at the cost of pushing more children below the poverty line and financially crippling the current workers who have also paid their taxes all their lives (so far).
Eventually with policies like these, you run out of other people's money.
Trouble is that it is a political landmine since pensioners are a big part of the vote so no one has the balls to abolish (or at least reform) the triple lock.
It's mysterious why they haven't done that despite the fact that the demographic problems were known to occur up to 40 years ago. But you see the same thing with housing prices and rents, forthcoming problems were already obvious 20 years ago in every country, yet only few have tried to deal with them in time. Maybe someone else can explain where this inertia comes from, I always found it strange.
Because it goes against their personal interests.
I don't know how this works in other countries. In Finland, it was established decades ago that pensions based on past contributions are constitutionally protected private property. Because people made explicit pension contributions and because the government promised that the future pension would be based on the individual contributions, the government can't alter the deal substantially without a constitutional amendment. If the contributions had been general taxes, or if the promised pension had been independent of the actual contributions, ordinary legislative process would have been enough.
The scale of the problem is absolutely mind-blowing.
Not saying that the math would work out without problems then.
Whether nationalizing the entire US market would be worth it is left to the reader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
True, but economic growth is very real.
And established elsewhere is this post, people apparently don't want to live like we did 50 years ago, so economic growth has merely been translated into inflated expectations.
It's been translated into far better services too.
Most don't want to so they have to compensate via taxes and higher pension age.
Well yeah, because it's difficult, taxing, often traumatic work that pays the same as any other nursing job with a higher QoL and social status. And even then they're pushing out all the actual nursing staff that pays well in favor of MAs/CNAs who get paid like shit.
I personally don’t think wages always correspond to how essential a job is, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend that wages match the necessity of a job, its difficulty, educational requirements, etc.. In this case, I’d expect that we would see people move to jobs that are more essential than their prior job. I think this is more complex that just “poaching”.
I really don't mean to get into the nitty gritty details - I'm not an economist and I'm not providing solutions, just stating what I see as the problem. I believe that we have enough resources, and there are issues getting those resources to where they need to go.
Example: Assume we do have a shortage of elderly care workers. Why is this the case? Could this be fixed by increasing their wages? Then that implores the question of who is paying for these increased wages, which is the question I'm not answering and I don't know enough to answer.
I just don't really believe that keeping the birth rates high is the answer to this economic problem. It might be a solution, but it's more of a band-aid than truly facing the issue. If you have a inefficient engine you can either figure out how to produce more gasoline (babies), or you can figure out how to produce a more efficient engine.
A truthful ad for working in an old folks home in the US would be, "slightly over median wages, but with inflexible and unreliable schedules, rampant industry wide exploitation of workers and their rights, likely multiple ownership changes of your place of business, caring for potentially deranged and violent individuals, high non-refundable monetary investment up-front, no guarantee of residency availability"
In the places with high fertility rate, you will almost surely observe joint families. I'm from India where we have such demographic variety that you can see adjacent areas with completely different fertility rates. In one, you will see old-style large houses with courtyards and 15+ people in them living as a joint family. Invariably these people have more kids. But in the next town with more nuclear families and modernish apartments, you will be lucky to see 2 kids per family. [1]
This is what births the secondary economic incentives which are mentioned a lot in popular discourse. For example, if you're already living in a house with 15 people your financial realities will require a similar number of people in the next generation to continue the same lifestyle.
[1] Wealth is not a confounding factor here. The specific two areas I have in mind are both more or less equally wealthy, one has folks running a coconut business primarily and the other is a small town with the usual assortment of office jobs.
So … probably most straightforward solution is to update local zoning laws to encourage a more communal style of living. Not communes but more along the lines of suburbs-as-village.
Having a child has a significant impact on your professional career (women in particular). Even in countries with great parental leave, like Denmark, the absence still reduces the years of experience you would otherwise get. Once they are "ready" for a child, they are in their late 30's and barely have time to birth one or two babies and would probably not have the stamina required to take on more.
The social pressure of raising the perfect kid with multiple activities in their "spare" time is much higher today and require more from the parent.
Ideally, people should get children in their early 20's, when they are physically more fit to handle the pressure. Unfortunately the current education system does not combine well with young parents. The government would need to integrate child care in colleges so that the parents have somewhere to place the children while studying.
Of course, those last two sentences are tongue in cheek.
The real problem is that certain segments of society are not compensated for their labor at a rate that would allow them to retire early, and may even have to work beyond retirement age in order to supplement their stipend. Worse yet, these people often work in sectors that offer few affordances for them to maintain their health into old age and may even push them into living conditions that are detrimental to their health (assuming their job isn't detrimental to their health in the first place).
Ideally, people would be able to retire when they want (within reason). The reality is that some people can retire at a relatively young age while others don't really have that option.
Ha. Total pipedream. It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of our current economic system.
That people are living longer is why the system is failing. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider whether any country would introduce a state pension now knowing how much they cost.
Sustainable population and economic growth at that rate can't happen indefinitely.
Some people have been vocally saying this system in unsustainable long term, just that Europeans governments never wanted to publicly admit this due to fears of loosing elections, so they kept kicking the can down the road.
It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow
This is exactly what happens in Denmark - a balancing of the pension system.
Also,rgis has been planned since 2006 - so it is nothing new.
Hence only doing this for future pensioners will give equal time as reitred.
(at least, this is the core reasoning)
Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.
https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...
That's exactly how pensions work in Europe. Replace "Ponzi scheme organizers" by "legally elected governments" and here you have it - you have a whole continent of people believing that their pension is a given. Not everybody may like it, but that's the hard truth.
In the US, people contribute towards a 401K, and choose how to invest, but typically pick up just the S&P 500 - anyway and at least that money is somehow what they have saved for themselves.
But I agree with your statement "it is completely possible for the system to be balanced" - yes a Ponzi scheme can be absolutely balanced, you just need enough participants ...
pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception and the value is straightforward - it redistributes wealth from the younger population to the older ones. this reduces the need for individuals to plan their retirements as the state takes care of it. as pointed by another post, you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side.
wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions?
but i do agree that one should not think of pensions as a given. its worth pointing out that there are two types of pensions - defined benefits and defined contributions.
No, not exactly, that's different.
> unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions?
That's certainly contributions I don't like either, because of how this system is abused. But to be fair, unemployment benefits or healthcare aren't a pyramid scheme, because you aren't paying for the previous "investors" - you might get back what you contributed (with a lots of caveats). In the case of the pension system, you clearly pay the previous "investors".
Writing this in an article about how a country rug-pulled it's young citizens is quite amusing.
If that's not deception, I don't know what is.
> you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side
Which hasn't been the case in how many years already?
Calling it something else than it is, only to taint the system and its receivers by associating it with a criminal undertaking is bad faith, if not worse.
> the first pensioners didn't invest in the system
I agree with you .. I suppose you're making my point here?
> It's also not a pyramid scheme, since the structure is upside down
The structure would be upside down if the demography was growing as expected - and that's the core of the issue, why governments have to extend the age of the retirement: the burden of the pensions is becoming unbearable relative to the amount of active people.
> there is no recruitment.
No indeed, though if you decide to live in Denmark, you are not recruited, you're forcefully enrolled in this scheme.
> ... to taint ... its receivers by associating it with a criminal undertaking is bad faith
There is no "criminal undertaking" here, the system is simply broken and you're saying things I didn't - I certainly don't blame the current pensioners, nor the active generation working for these pensioners - they are all victims of this system.
They could have easily worked 10 years longer instead of doing nothing but drinking wine all day and/or going out to restaurants in retirement. That is in between traveling to go out to restaurants and/or drink wine.
The boomers scammed us all and aren't done yet. They are going to make sure to bankrupt the entire system with healthcare cost before they go.
In some rich countries people spend now more years of their life out of work than in work because of much longer education and much longer lifespans. If you want to keep the same social standards, all other things being equal, you need to raise the retirement age.
Or some may say it got outdated.
It was started at times when the life expentancy was low. And it was given at age above the life expentancy. And in the beginning not to everyone. The retirement age got lower and given to broader set of population gradually. These moves made governments popular, so it was no brainer to introduce, on the expense of future generations.
Birth rates that can maintain the economics of relatively low retirement age could not be sustained without destroying the planet. Actually has to be reversed still as it went too far already and deteriorating as we speak, especialy with the ongoing large increase in the overall life quality - causing decreasing birth rate alone - and healt. The system was destined to fail. But how to take away rights? It is much harder than giving, especiallly when the adverse effects are for current voters, not future generations?
So the necessary steps are postponed, postponed, postponed yet again, for many decades, taking about necessity in many forms, meanwhile filling bigger and bigger holes in the budgets, through borrowing, making the problem worse, again for future generations. Very few countries do tiny adjustments, and even those are met with huge protests mostly.
I wonder what the future holds. Painful adjustments or more painful collapse later in some form.
I suppose increased life expectancy and fewer young people both contribute to worse dependency ratios.
Living longer doesn’t necessarily mean having more productive years than in the past. We simply have the medical tools to keep people alive even if they can’t much get out of bed.