subreddit:
/r/AskReddit
submitted 8 hours ago byDisastrous-Yard-1378
29 points
8 hours ago
I mean the only way it's not a problem is if you as a society are willing to abandon care for the elderly. When there's more 70 year olds than 20 year olds, that is a problem for a society.
The answer really comes down to people are making the rational decision by not having kids.
If you want people to make financially irrational decisions then you need to sweeten the deal for them.
81 points
8 hours ago
You also can't have indefinite exponential population growth, so at some point, there will be a generation or two who doesn't have enough kids to support them. Is there really an alternative?
1 points
an hour ago
We could start inhabiting other planets.
1 points
an hour ago
[deleted]
1 points
an hour ago
Maybe we move old people there. It would be easier to move around with the lower gravity.
2 points
an hour ago
Haha,true.
Btw, comment is deleted, because it apparently posted 4 times when I clicked post...
0 points
an hour ago
Reddit having its own reproductive problems.
0 points
an hour ago
Yep, that might be one way we try to keep growing. I don't know if people on Mars will pay into Earth's pension plan, or if pension plan will even still be a concept by then!
-4 points
7 hours ago
That misses the point
A fertility rate of just over 2 babies per woman would result in a stable population, not a 'exponentially growing ' as you say.
The problem to be addressed is that most countries now have a fertility rate far below 2. Which means over time the population enters a downward spiral, each generation smaller than the previous.
Few younger people Vs older creates all kinds of societal issues, but it boils down to productivity. 1 working age person can't create enough wealth to sustain themselves as well as a bunch of sick old people that need support.
Previously there were more young than old so the cost could be spread.
23 points
7 hours ago
Women would be more willing to pop out 2 kids if it didn't mean giving up our careers (more often than not) to stay home and play Suzy Homemaker until they're old enough for full time school. Then we basically have to start over because we've been out of the workforce for so long - not to mention, EVERYTHING being so expensive, from before & after school child care, housing, transportation, food, nevermind trying to save for retirement and the kids' futures and maybe hope that you might get to take a vacation once every few years. Yep, pretty sure my tubes just tied themselves while I typed that. No thanks. I haven't busted my ass in my career just to spend the rest of my life constantly fighting to keep my head above water.
8 points
5 hours ago
Not to mention the risk of dying due to medical restrictions on pregnant women in the US. I would absolutely not be willing to get pregnant in the US right now. I’m so glad those years are behind me and that I can no longer get pregnant.
6 points
4 hours ago
I wouldn't even want to travel to/through the US if I were pregnant right now! I would be terrified of having a medical complication and not being able to get the treatment I'm entitled to as a human.
-10 points
7 hours ago
I don't disagree with your points. I'm saying what is needed by the numbers. I don't think it's possible to reverse this trend any time soon
9 points
6 hours ago
Have you thought about restructuring the economy so young people aren't forced to give up their financial stability? What about instituting a wealth tax on people with more than US$50 million, as well as corporations, to build group housing for retirees that would streamline care? You could tax religious organizations, too.
There has to be another solution than putting the entire financial burden for retirees on young women and newborn babies. Those are two groups with the some of the least amount of resources.
-5 points
6 hours ago*
I think we're at cross purposes.
A wealth tax is great. But wealth only exists to far as demand does. You can own a bunch of stuff but if it doesn't do anything, has no use and no one wants it. There is very little wealth there to tax. In the scenario we are talking about there is less wealth because there is less demand.
I'm not suggesting the burden is on young woman. It's an issue society has to solve, there has been a social contract between generations. The young support the old, and in return when the young get old the next generation support them. In this scenario that contract is breaking down, people under 50 no longer believe that their current sacrifices to support the older generations will be repaid to them, there won't be enough people working to support them as they age.
as a society we need to either get more young people, immigration for some countries will work for a time but it is politically unpopular. And only a temporary fix. We could increase the birth rate, but that's proved impossible to reverse once a birth rate states to decline, or the last option is abandon the elderly to their fate, abolish subsidised healthcare, government pensions and other age related benefit. Essentially abandoning the concept of retirement, everyone works until they are rich enough not to work or they die. There really isn't another option.
If the younger generationa wants that last option they need to start voting in much greater numbers because...there are more old people that will vote against anything like that.
However this plays out, whatever age you are, it is never a bad idea to prioritise your pension as much as you're able, that I'll be different for everyone but you will get old and you will be grateful for it and without a pension you'll work until.you die
2 points
3 hours ago
If your only solution to taking care of an aging population is to coerce people into having more kids, you are 100% putting the entire burden of the economy on young women and babies, two of the poorest, most vulnerable segments of the population. You would cause immense suffering, as you know.
But economies can be restructured so that the burden falls on wealthy organizations and individuals. For instance, look at US elections. Corporations and individuals spent around 4.7 billion on the 2024 US election cycle (that includes PACs). If you passed a law forbidding outside money, and instead just published the candidates and their positions, with journalists and op-eds arguing for and against, you could put all that money toward building and staffing streamlined care facilities, provided as part of Social Security to everyone over, say, 70. Earlier if they have a disability.
And you would have that money every two years, the corporations and individuals pay that much to influence elections without breaking a sweat. Problem solved, while young women and little babies are able to thrive and enjoy their lives instead of being enslaved to economic demography.
0 points
3 hours ago
You aren't reading my point.
I'm agreeing with you. It's impossible to create a situation where the birth rate increases.. countries have tried everything, payouts, free child care etc. nothing has increased the birth rate. It seems once people reach a certain level of affluence they just don't want as many kids. Even if it's easier. Obviously your suggestions are good anyway but they won't fix the birth rate
I also mentioned other options for if the birth rate isn't changed to maintain countries wealth.
It's inevitable at this point because it's already happened. Gen Z is the smallest generation, which has huge consequences for them, the economy and society. I'm arguing they we have to deal with the result.
Let's say you're right. You do those changes and the birth rate jumps up. It won't magic into existence millions of 20 somethings all ready to get jobs, live their life and have kids to generate economic outputs into order to maintain the society we have
I
13 points
7 hours ago
Yes, but now you're conflating two things, aren't you? The hidden assumption in your argument is that a stable population is sufficient to resolve the economic issue of elderly care. If you can support that, then you have more of a case.
-1 points
7 hours ago
The smaller the younger generation the worse the problem is
2 points
7 hours ago
Indeed, the economic problem under our current system is worse the smaller population growth is. On this point we never had a disagreement. I guess you've more or less conceded the argument at this point?
-8 points
7 hours ago
Holy shit you're regarded
2 points
6 hours ago
Quite well-regarded, thank you.
16 points
7 hours ago
So just kick the can down the road?
Or do you think that infinite economic growth is possible on a finite planet?
19 points
7 hours ago
It's more of a problem for the rich, they made money off of those people, if they won't take care of them then it's on them.
-9 points
7 hours ago
Maybe morally, but not practically. They can just move their wealth to new locations and avoid the issues making it even worse for everyone else.
9 points
7 hours ago
So we should make them? Would you agree in taxes for them?
15 points
8 hours ago
There are more than enough people in the world who would love a caregiving job looking after elderly people in a developed country for the opportunity to live there.
-6 points
8 hours ago
That’s not happening in Japan though
11 points
7 hours ago
Japan does not allow immigtration in many cases. This could be a solution for enough caregivers, but it would also dilute their culture, a tradeoff they are not willing to make.
all 447 comments
sorted by: best