The future of population growth.

[E27007]

I’m not sure whether you make this out to be a good thing or not. Yes, less income tax means less money for government spending, but surely that would be counterbalanced by the societal benefits of reduced demand anyway?

Governments are accused of spending plans financed by high levels of Public Debt for future generations to bear, "kicking the can down the road". If those future generations have adopted a different work ethic, a profound change of ethic for less work and therefore lower tax rake for the Exchequer. How will those debts be serviced?
Climate change, tackling man-made pollution by encouraging a lower birth rate, seems to be a taboo subject, plans to limit mobilty, housing, consumption etc, are in place, but why not deal with the problem at source, people are the root cause of pollution, therefore less births, fewer children = less polution

 

[Giugiaro]

fewer children = less polution

Not entirely true.
It's not just a question of quantity. It's also a question of quality.

If we had our modern economy and habits built on the same moulds as in the early 1900s we would be in a MUCH worse position right now.

 

[johncrossley]

Governments are accused of spending plans financed by high levels of Public Debt for future generations to bear, "kicking the can down the road". If those future generations have adopted a different work ethic, a profound change of ethic for less work and therefore lower tax rake for the Exchequer. How will those debts be serviced?

More people will get a good inheritance in future, as children will no longer have to share it with so many siblings. The inheritance can be taxed and there would greater potential for more wealth taxes.

Climate change, tackling man-made pollution by encouraging a lower birth rate, seems to be a taboo subject

That's the main beef I have with the Green party. They refuse to discuss the environmental damage caused by having children.

 

[E27007]

That's the main beef I have with the Green party. They refuse to discuss the environmental damage caused by having children.

None of the political parties discuss the matter, we have many vocal ethnic minorities who would object on the grounds of an "attack" on their cultural beliefs

 

[TheBigD]

After reading this thread earlier, youtube has recommended the following video...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because Musk (a known hard right-winger) is to be trusted of course!

 

[TheBigD]

Because Musk (a known hard right-winger) is to be trusted of course!

Thanks for your insightful and indepth analysis of Elon Musks polical beliefs, could you also do the same for Jordan Peterson, Shannon Swan, Chamath Palihapitiya as well please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for your insightful and indepth analysis of Elon Musks polical beliefs, could you also do the same for Jordan Peterson, Shannon Swan, Chamath Palihapitiya as well please?

Sure:

Peterson:

He began to receive widespread attention as a public intellectual in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Palihapitiya appears to be a Democrat, but that is just like a Tory rather than the extreme right of the GOP by UK standards. He's the most left of them all, but he's clearly a capitalist.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamath_Palihapitiya

I can't find which Swan it is referring to, unfortunately.

So my point stands, when you add Musk to those who.

 

[Runningaround]

Governments are accused of spending plans financed by high levels of Public Debt for future generations to bear, "kicking the can down the road". If those future generations have adopted a different work ethic, a profound change of ethic for less work and therefore lower tax rake for the Exchequer. How will those debts be serviced?
Climate change, tackling man-made pollution by encouraging a lower birth rate, seems to be a taboo subject, plans to limit mobilty, housing, consumption etc, are in place, but why not deal with the problem at source, people are the root cause of pollution, therefore less births, fewer children = less polution

Less children, less taxpaying workers too look after the elderly, of those who don't have children the higher need for care homes and staff as they won't have any family to look after them. Would you advocate a lower life expectancy say 70 maximum, that'd only need three years of pension payments instead of 25 and would save the NHS a fortune.

 

[TwoYellas]

Peterson is the intellectual we deserve. The article below sums the charlatan up.



https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve/


Quote:


“Obscurantism is more than a desperate attempt to feign novelty, though. It’s also a tactic for badgering readers into deference to the writer’s authority.“

 

[E27007]

Less children, less taxpaying workers too look after the elderly, of those who don't have children the higher need for care homes and staff as they won't have any family to look after them. Would you advocate a lower life expectancy say 70 maximum, that'd only need three years of pension payments instead of 25 and would save the NHS a fortune.

No I would not, i advocate long-term measures for a natural decline in the size of the population, achievable by a reduction in the number of births, as a logical solution to reduce man-made pollution, the cause of climate change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Less children, less taxpaying workers too look after the elderly, of those who don't have children the higher need for care homes and staff as they won't have any family to look after them. Would you advocate a lower life expectancy say 70 maximum, that'd only need three years of pension payments instead of 25 and would save the NHS a fortune.

It may well be the case that COVID actually does knock life expectancy down a bit now we know it's not going away. Not the way I'd like to see it happen, but possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2022 ==

No I would not, i advocate long-term measures for a natural decline in the size of the population, achievable by a reduction in the number of births, as a logical solution to reduce man-made pollution, the cause of climate change.

As do I. The economic issues it will cause need to be mitigated by changing the economic system so the financial impacts of an individual's life are self contained, e.g. my care is saved for by me/my generation's taxes, not paid for by my kids that I don't have and likely won't have.

That much of the present pension, care and health system is basically a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it has to be one.

 

[Runningaround]

No I would not, i advocate long-term measures for a natural decline in the size of the population, achievable by a reduction in the number of births, as a logical solution to reduce man-made pollution, the cause of climate change.

The only way you can do that without wrecking the economy is by reducing the life expectancy, or increase the pension age to 75 so to reduce the time pensioners are retired, they might so knackered by then they might not even make pension age.
And with the increasing amount of childless adults who will look after them in old age? They'll not have any children or grand kids to pick up the shopping, clean the house or take them to the GP Surgery, they'll need to pay carers and who'll do that job? Poor paying employers that care providers are, are struggling to recruit now, with a smaller workforce, they'll either have to compete on wages, which will either mean a '' Carer Tax'' for your future or you'll pay it out your savings(if your lucky enough to have any)

The West is severely losing from a low birth rate the only way to replenish it without a significant birth rate is to increase immigration, by bringing those over from the countries far worse off from climate change than us and employ them in food growing industries where it'll still grow.
And as countries get wealthier the childbirth rate drops as they no longer need a the children around too look after them as they used to, the countries with high birth rates also have a high mortality rate among the young, benefits and pensions are non-existence so the children are their pension policy to ensure they are looked after when to old to work.

 

[E27007]

It may well be the case that COVID actually does knock life expectancy down a bit now we know it's not going away. Not the way I'd like to see it happen, but possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2022 ==



As do I. The economic issues it will cause need to be mitigated by changing the economic system so the financial impacts of an individual's life are self contained, e.g. my care is saved for by me/my generation's taxes, not paid for by my kids that I don't have and likely won't have.

That much of the present pension, care and health system is basically a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it has to be one.

Post WW2, the movement to make "a land fit for heroes" was funded as such a scheme, the Govt made a wise decision for the time, there were many vulnerable people in need, two generations who had suffered WW1, the depression of the 1920's and 1930's,and then the austerity of WW2, those generations had been denied the means to provide for their welfare by events out of their control. It would have been morally wrong to deny those generations the enfranchisement of an NHS, State Pension, and State Welfare, and a moral wrong to delay the NHS and State Pension until a fund had built up in advance.
The mistake was that successive Govts did not revise their thinking and never created a long-term fund to future-proof the provision of pensions and welfare of younger generations ,so yet another example of Politicians "kicking the can down the road"

 

[AlterEgo]

It may well be the case that COVID actually does knock life expectancy down a bit now we know it's not going away. Not the way I'd like to see it happen, but possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2022 ==



As do I. The economic issues it will cause need to be mitigated by changing the economic system so the financial impacts of an individual's life are self contained, e.g. my care is saved for by me/my generation's taxes, not paid for by my kids that I don't have and likely won't have.

With an increasingly aged population, any working age people in the future - as a dwindling middle band of the demographic - are going to be ever more pressed by taxation, as well as the burden of saving for their own care. The current system does have elements of being a Ponzi scheme but the idea of a degrowth future is dangerous.

Crashing fertility rates aren’t like turning the engine off in a light aircraft. There’s no guarantee you can restart the engine.

 

[JamesT]

With an increasingly aged population, any working age people in the future - as a dwindling middle band of the demographic - are going to be ever more pressed by taxation, as well as the burden of saving for their own care. The current system does have elements of being a Ponzi scheme but the idea of a degrowth future is dangerous.

Crashing fertility rates aren’t like turning the engine off in a light aircraft. There’s no guarantee you can restart the engine.

Fertility rates are somewhat cyclical. We’re currently seeing the Baby Boomers retiring, which is pushing the demographics of the country older. Looking at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rticles/overviewoftheukpopulation/january2021 the birth rate tailed off significantly as we entered Generation X. So that should start tilting the balance back towards working age people.

 

[TwoYellas]

It's generally the wealthier countries with low birth rates that are driving climate change. The poorer countries with higher birth rates are going to and are already beginning to suffer the effects.

The population degrowth idea isn't what's going to solve the problem of climate change - replacing high-emitting fuels like coal, oil and gas is. It's wise to listen to the scientific consensus on this issue.

 

[E27007]

It's generally the wealthier countries with low birth rates that are driving climate change. The poorer countries with higher birth rates are going to and are already beginning to suffer the effects.

The population degrowth idea isn't what's going to solve the problem of climate change - replacing high-emitting fuels like coal, oil and gas is. It's wise to listen to the scientific consensus on this issue.

The scientists are not in full agreement over climate change, accept that there is man-made greenhouse gases as a result of human activity, and naturally occurring greenhouse gases being created of which we cannot control, we can take measures against the first, but not the second.

 

[najaB]

The scientists are not in full agreement over climate change, accept that there is man-made greenhouse gases as a result of human activity, and naturally occurring greenhouse gases being created of which we cannot control, we can take measures against the first, but not the second.

Err... I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. Your post boils down to "Humans have control over human-produced greenhouse gas production." - which is pretty much what @TwoYellas said.

 

[TwoYellas]

No I would not, i advocate long-term measures for a natural decline in the size of the population, achievable by a reduction in the number of births, as a logical solution to reduce man-made pollution, the cause of climate change.

With some parts of the world eventually becoming unlivable due to the actions of wealthier countries, then those countries doing the damage will have a moral responsibility to take in climate migrants and therefore grow their own population. Or they could just take decisive action to cut carbon emissions like taking action regards burning of fossil fuels.

As for the long term measures you are advancing here. There isn't time and it's barking up the wrong tree. Therefore your idea is suicidal for the human species (as well as others).

So maybe then there will be population 'degrowth', but perhaps not how you thought it would occur.

 

[Yew]

With some parts of the world eventually becoming unlivable due to the actions of wealthier countries, then those countries doing the damage will have a moral responsibility to take in climate migrants and therefore grow their own population. Or they could just take decisive action to cut carbon emissions like taking action regards burning of fossil fuels.

As for the long term measures you are advancing here. There isn't time and it's barking up the wrong tree. Therefore your idea is suicidal for the human species (as well as others).

So maybe then there will be population 'degrowth', but perhaps not how you thought it would occur.

Given that the premise of this thread is "The Future of Population Growth", it is certainly not "barking up the wrong tree", it's entirely on topic.

If you want to make a thread about climate change, go ahead, but please stop derailing this one.

 

[TwoYellas]

Given that the premise of this thread is "The Future of Population Growth", it is certainly not "barking up the wrong tree", it's entirely on topic.

You've misunderstood. I'm saying 'it's barking up the wrong tree' in terms of the idea of reducing the population to effectively combat climate change. I'm not suggesting the poster was off topic. Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

If you want to make a thread about climate change, go ahead, but please stop derailing this one.

It was a valid answer and criticism of a post. Not derailing anything and entirely on topic and relevant to the post I was replying to.

 

[Bald Rick]

The issue with slowing - and a potential reversal - of population growth is ultimately the increasing age profile of the population. That leaves a decreasing segment of the population in what what we currently call ‘of working age’. We have experienced a kick in that direction in this country over the past two years, with the number of people becoming economically inactive, ie not in work or looking for it, increasing by about a million IIRC.

There’s only two ways to counter it, either we expect people to work longer (either in average hours per week or have longer working careers), or we increase productivity through better process and automation. That means accepting that some types of job will just need to disappear to help the population and economy as a whole become more productive. I’m sure the Mods will be delighted for me mentioning DOO in this context, and claim my £5 prize for thread drift

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The issue with slowing - and a potential reversal - of population growth is ultimately the increasing age profile of the population. That leaves a decreasing segment of the population in what what we currently call ‘of working age’. We have experienced a kick in that direction in this country over the past two years, with the number of people becoming economically inactive, ie not in work or looking for it, increasing by about a million IIRC.

There’s only two ways to counter it, either we expect people to work longer (either in average hours per week or have longer working careers), or we increase productivity through better process and automation. That means accepting that some types of job will just need to disappear to help the population and economy as a whole become more productive. I’m sure the Mods will be delighted for me mentioning DOO in this context, and claim my £5 prize for thread drift

I think that's a pretty good analysis. Or - another way of looking at it - if we want to have continuing good standards of living, then we can't afford to have a growing proportion of the population be economically inactive, unless that's more than counterbalanced by improvements in hourly productivity. There is to some extent a counter-balancing effect that fewer children means fewer resources need to be devoted to things like education.

A related problem that I think is also unacknowledged is the long-term trend where we are demanding ever-improving standards of care and healthcare for people who are old/unwell/etc. (and for children at the other end of the age range). Much of that care basically has to be provided one-on-one, which means improving standards means a higher proportion of the population giving that care. In the long run, that's simply unsustainable if you can't get a higher proportion of people working and being economically active, and I would say is a big contributor to why health and care services seem to be in continual crisis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are some very difficult questions to address in care. Further deep debate on the rights and wrongs of it is clearly for another thread, but there are plenty of very ill people who are costing a fortune to keep going but with no quality of life, and who might prefer a visit to Dignitas, but are not afforded that option because they are too ill to arrange it themselves or to fly there, which is the only way to arrange it without someone risking life imprisonment for murder or a related charge. Clearly such a thing would need massive safeguards such as "living wills" to stop people bumping Granny off to get her money ASAP (sadly there are people who would do that) but in my view it really needs looking at.

To me it's bizarre that if I had a seriously ill dog with no quality of life I would have the option to give it a treat day and calmingly stroke it as it breathed its last in controlled circumstances, but that that same dignity cannot be afforded to me if I'm little more than a vegetable. To me it shows in some ways how we love animals more than people sometimes.

 

[najaB]

To me it shows in some ways how we love animals more than people sometimes.

It's more that some people are of the mind that their moral/religious beliefs give them the right to make choices for other people. Consider that suicide is still a crime in many countries - my deciding that I don't want to live is considered a crime against the State. Something is seriously wrong with that.

 

[Magdalia]

The issue with slowing - and a potential reversal - of population growth is ultimately the increasing age profile of the population. That leaves a decreasing segment of the population in what what we currently call ‘of working age’. We have experienced a kick in that direction in this country over the past two years, with the number of people becoming economically inactive, ie not in work or looking for it, increasing by about a million IIRC.

There’s only two ways to counter it, either we expect people to work longer (either in average hours per week or have longer working careers), or we increase productivity through better process and automation. That means accepting that some types of job will just need to disappear to help the population and economy as a whole become more productive. I’m sure the Mods will be delighted for me mentioning DOO in this context, and claim my £5 prize for thread drift

But increasing productivity through better process and automation is not the panacea that people think it is, and the reason why is tax. You have mentioned DOO, so let's use it as an example. Taking those guards out takes out their wages and the taxes they pay. Are you going to ask the driver to pay the guard's taxes too? Or are you going to ask the company that employs the driver to pay the guard's taxes? Automation is another example: robots don't pay tax. The companies that make or own the robots pay tax, but put the rates too high and the robots don't get made or used.

The art of taxation was once described as like plucking a goose, the aim being to get the maximum number of feathers for the minimum amount of hissing. However productive the economy is, it still needs between 3 and 4 working people for every non-working person, in order to pluck the goose without too much hissing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's more that some people are of the mind that their moral/religious beliefs give them the right to make choices for other people. Consider that suicide is still a crime in many countries - my deciding that I don't want to live is considered a crime against the State. Something is seriously wrong with that.

It is bizarre, and somewhat backwards. In terms of quality of life gain it might actually be that the best value is afforded by giving a suicidal, destitute, homeless young person who sees no way out a free social rental flat and free basic food for a year, costing no more than maybe ten to fifteen grand or so, yet we won't as easily do that as spend twice that on a series of operations to keep an elderly person alive who has no quality of life at all and has good reason for not wishing to live.

It is a difficult one but is a debate society needs to properly have. We recognise (in the UK at least) that a woman is sovereign over her body and any embryo therein, but not about whether her own life continues after it ceases to be worthwhile for her, often spending tens of thousands of pounds keeping someone alive who has no desire to live. Recognising the need for very clear safeguards, it's incongruous to me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But increasing productivity through better process and automation is not the panacea that people think it is, and the reason why is tax. You have mentioned DOO, so let's use it as an example. Taking those guards out takes out their wages and the taxes they pay. Are you going to ask the driver to pay the guard's taxes too? Or are you going to ask the company that employs the driver to pay the guard's taxes? Automation is another example: robots don't pay tax. The companies that make or own the robots pay tax, but put the rates too high and the robots don't get made or used.

I don't think that would be a problem at all. What has historically pretty much always happened with automation is that the less productive jobs are replaced by more productive ones (sometimes, after some time lag, as happened for example in the early 1980s when there was temporarily high unemployment). So with your example, if you remove the guard, you will (if the market is functioning properly and people are able to re-skill) find after a couple of years that the people who used to be working as guards are now working doing something else and therefore still paying taxes. (NB. I'm using guards purely for the sake of following your example. To be clear, I do NOT regard the job of guards as a job that should be replaced). Just think about the wider economy today and consider how many people are doing jobs that didn't exist 40 years ago!

 

[Magdalia]

I don't think that would be a problem at all. What has historically pretty much always happened with automation is that the less productive jobs are replaced by more productive ones (sometimes, after some time lag, as happened for example in the early 1980s when there was temporarily high unemployment). So with your example, if you remove the guard, you will (if the market is functioning properly and people are able to re-skill) find after a couple of years that the people who used to be working as guards are now working doing something else and therefore still paying taxes. (NB. I'm using guards purely for the sake of following your example. To be clear, I do NOT regard the job of guards as a job that should be replaced). Just think about the wider economy today and consider how many people are doing jobs that didn't exist 40 years ago!

You're right, according to the economic textbooks, but getting the ex guard into a slightly more productive job doesn't add much to productivity, and they might end up in a less productive job, or not working at all. Overall, the impact on productivity is marginal.

What matters for improving productivity is getting out of low productivity industries and into high productivity industries. The target here should not be people like guards but the vast cohort of university graduates that we have educated in the last 20 years. We need them to be working in high productivity new industries such as biomedical and renewable energy instead of running cute little businesses baking cakes or distilling gin.

And we would still need between 3 and 4 working people for every non-working person, in order to pluck the tax goose without too much hissing.