Are There benefits to a Declining Population?

[Broomstick]

@sndraco

To address a couple of the disadvantages that people have pointed to

1. the ratio of workers/younger age folks to older age folks. Yes this is an issue, the main reason it is so, is that in the US the pension scheme and Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, if (and it isn’t easy) we can adjust to a scheme where each generation saves and provides for their own retirement then the ratio doesn’t matter. And in any case depending on an always expanding younger population base isn’t sustainable even at current levels, so a solution has to be found to this problem. So its a disadvantage we have to solve anyways and the later date we start to solve it the more expensive it is.

You forgot both

A) changing the retirement age and keeping people in the workforce longer. As on average jobs are both less physical and people are, despite obesity and so forth, healthier into old age arguably people SHOULD continue to work past 65. Perhaps moving to part-time work from say, 60-75 and only being partially subsidized, if that.

B) “saving for one’s own retirement” is only viable is one has sufficient surplus over base needs to put into savings. Also, people tend to be crap at long-term planning.

[AK84]

Retirement is not just for due to people getting too old to work, but to ensure that the next generation has a bite of the cherry.

[Broomstick]

But if there are fewer of the next generation there will be less need for the older folks to retire to make room for the newer folks. In any case, it shouldn’t be a matter of throwing one age group under the bus to save another age group.

[XT]

@Flyer

I find it very interesting that two separate people have somehow forgotten that in 2010, we were in the throes of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

I find it interesting that you didn’t take the time to actually Google the answer and then re-read what Mijin was saying and what you responded too. Here, I’ll help you…here is what Mijin said:

The US has comparatively low unemployment, and it’s been like that throughout the modern era. You have to go back to the great depression for the last major spike, and even then, go back a few more years and you see 5% unemployment again.

This is absolutely correct. In 2010 the highest unemployment rate in the US was 9.8%. That’s certainly high…FOR THE US…but ‘comparatively’ it’s low, especially for 2010 (several European nations were into double digits, and the EU as a whole was higher for longer…look at the EU employment rate and click on 10Y to see where they were during the same period). And this was the height of the unemployment spike. From there on it was all downhill to the current rate. Here, see for yourself. You do have to go back to the Great Depression to see ‘the last major spike’…in the 15-25% range and for more than a few years.

If you are going to make a snarky point at least check to make sure your snarky rejoinder is correct first. You might also read more carefully what you are responding too in order to save yourself from looking foolish.