The labor shortage means a decrease in tax revenue for the state, which in turn means less state “services” for those who were promised retirement, healthcare, and so on, in their twilight years.

One might logically think that with a decreasing population, the size of the state would decrease in tandem, as it has less people to account for overall. Government for the people and all that. But the state refuses to decrease. So it will move to replace the waning population with new populations. Therefor immigration and campaigns to increase the birthrate is their only choice, and I suspect this is the way they will hitherto move.

In many of the industrial countries of the world there is talk that there isn't going to be even younger working age people to do enough work to support those that are retired. I wonder what the thoughts are of the members of this forum on this subject. — dclements

Many countries have no social security like the US or Europe. The dynamics of aging and surviving do not rely solely on 'artificially' formed social security. The concepts of resourcefulness and adaptation have been around before social security was implemented.
If you mean that we would revert back the longevity that we've gained as a population because the comfort of social security is threatened, I'd like to hear about the relative costs to longer life and happiness. A five-year gain in longevity does not equate to five-year gain in happiness. The proof? Prior decades, when people lived 5 year less, but happier 5-year more.

While for the last fifty years or so the news has been reporting many issues that threatens to effect our lives there has been one problem that hasn't been really talked about and that there is a problem that world population is not only not growing but it is actually deceasing world wide. In many of the industrial countries of the world there is talk that there isn't going to be even younger working age people to do enough work to support those that are retired. I wonder what the thoughts are of the members of this forum on this subject. — dclements

This is an issue that gets talked about all the time, including here on the forum. The current world population is about 8 billion. That’s expected to reach about 11 billion within 70 years I think. Then it’s supposed to shrink. I don’t think that takes into account the possible consequences of climate change.

It's the fertility rates that are dropping, all over the world and consistently over a long period now. Population will still increase for a while, because of increased life expectancy, but probably will start dropping rather sharply somewhere in the latter half of the century.

The long and short of it, is that it's good for the biosphere and bad for human societies.

Ecologically a lot of the issues are downstream of the sharp increase in population after the industrial revolution because we have taken in a lot of space and our production and consumption has become a strain on the natural world. From that perspective it is good that human population doesn't seem to be increasing indefinitely.

Economically and socially however, a society, or maybe rather our kind of modern societies, will have trouble keeping afloat. Economic growth is assumed and necessary because we rely on it to pay off our debts. For an economy to grow you typically need a constant influx of people of working age. Innovation, another necessity for economic growth, will presumably also decrease as the demographic ages because that generally comes from younger people.

Politically, parties and people tend to view it exclusively from one or the other perspective, even though both are true. It's easier to deny one or the other perspective, because the idea that both are true is rather unsatisfactory as the problem seems hard to solve then... either you get economic and social issues because of decline in population and a skewed demographic pyramid, or you get worse ecological problems because of ever growing economies which will eventually also cause social and economic issues.

I don't think the politics of it matter all that much either way, because policy efforts to increase fertility rates have hitherto been mostly unsuccessful.

I think Japan is going the robot route to handle elderly care. Apparently they’ve been working towards a technological solution for decades. According to the article below, such a solution might only end up creating more work. It will be interesting to see if this option prevails.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/09/1065135/japan-automating-eldercare-robots/amp/

I wonder what the thoughts are of the members of this forum on this subject. — dclements

This article touches on some of the concerns: Population decline's effects on global economy.

South Korea is often held up as an example of negative growth that has passed the point of no return (where the present population no longer has the means to reverse negative growth.) The challenge is adapting to a no growth economy, which is foreign territory for a large chunk of the human population. AI and robots to the rescue?

One of the reasons why Japan and Korea are experiencing population decline, and the United States is not, is that they are very reluctant to allow immigration into their countries. They have strong ethnic identities which is fine--as long as the people are reproducing. Americans would face declining population problems as well, but for the steady stream of young immigrants who bolster our population.

There are enough people younger than 25 in the world -- 42%, +/-, to solve the problem of declining population, at least for a period of time. However, Europe and China would have to be open to admitting ethnically diverse people.

I have no idea how population will be distributed by age, location, and income in 100 or 200 years, under future conditions at least as good as the past 1 or 2 hundred years. "At least as good" is unlikely to prevail, if it hasn't already come to an end.

Global warming, rising and warming oceans, more irregular climate behavior, declining supplies of fresh water, changing disease patterns around the world, problems with food production, etc. ALL make future conditions probably very challenging and possibly catastrophic. Specific populations and economies may not just decline, they may crash. These will all affect demographic disorder.

...world population is not only not growing but it is actually deceasing world wide. — dclements

All the data I see points to a 1% growth, decreasing steadily. Population is predicted to peek at 10.3 billion in 2084.

The relation between labour and tax was broken long ago. Labour force size and tax revenue are no longer tightly coupled, but the way tax systems are structured means they still matter. Tax on capital rather than labour can make good such shortfalls.

The problem isn’t the size of the population, it’s with capitalism. Which requires ever increasing growth and productivity to stand still. When economies shrink, there’s hell to play and the poorer people in the population take the brunt of it.

Currently everyone (except the Chinese) is in debt and countries are close to defaulting on their debt, or becoming crippled by it. Unless there is a global solution found to address this countries will begin to fail like dominoes. The vultures will move in and things are going to get messy. And `I haven’t factored in climate change yet.

(except the Chinese) — Punshhh

Chinese debt is about 75% of GDP.

Manpower balance will shift to Brasil,Indonesia, Pakistan and most African countries.

Obviously we will see a shift in demographics as people move into more technologically developed countries form their own as well as technological growth in said countries that have a surplus of younger people.

How this will pan out overall is for fortune-tellers and demogogues to weave whatever story best fits their agenda.

Chinese debt is about 75% of GDP.

Ok, who did they borrow it off?
It would be interesting to know how much money is owed to the Chinese by comparison.

It seems that the Western countries don’t want those people to arrive, there is a lot of pushback, which I think will get stronger.

What do you mean by this? It is clear enough that governments are very happy to bring people in legally. So by 'Western countries' you mean who?

While it's true that on balance China is a net creditor, so is Japan, along with Germany, Singapore, Taiwan...

The USA is again outstanding in being a huge net debtor.

Australia is an interesting case, since it has such a high rate of Superanuation. An example of how the relation between labour an tax was broken. Wealth can be structured so that retirees are supported by accumulated savings and productivity, not simply by taxing the next generation’s wages. But not if it is concentrated in the hands of the few.

Manpower balance will shift to Brasil,Indonesia, Pakistan and most African countries — I like sushi

I took your point to be about the development of those countries - Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan. As in, not about the population emigrating to Europe or North America. And that's a very good point - that is were the growth will be found for the next fifty years.

The electorate. This explains the meteoritic rise of Nigel Farage.

That is just one country. Shame people don't actually look at the main causes for immigration :D

There are two main factors in the UK. The first is that those applying to stay are more readily accepted and the second is that the universities prefer international students because they pay more for their education than domestic students.

Overall, the UK is pretty strict when it comes to immigration. All that is counteracted by the number of applications for asylum and such.

Whoever is in power will keep immigration high because they have too ot the country fails very, very quickly.

Maybe people will not realise this straight away sadly?

I imagine it will be both the development of those countries domestically as well as the dispersion of manpower from them. I would never suggest it is simply one or the other. Maybe both at the same time, maybe one more than the other first, whatever, they will have a large populations of people looking to live their lives as best they can.

Yes, there is a disconnect between the people and the politicians. It’s coming up more and more in European politics too.

There is a growing feeling in the more right wing of the population that immigration should be drastically reduced, regardless of the consequences.

I think this has always been present. Reading articles from the past you can see how little the general attitudes of people has changed.

There is a necessary see-sawing action I feel. I think Isaiah Berlin views on political philosophy outline the major problems we are constantly faced with.

universities prefer international students because they pay more for their education than domestic students. — I like sushi

We have the same outcome here in Canada. It has caused some problems - as governments everywhere seemingly retreat from open borders, Canada under Mark Carney has tried to follow suit. But many colleges and universities were relying on these premiums and are now under threat of closing campuses, cancelling classes, etc.

Overall, the UK is pretty strict when it comes to immigration. All that is counteracted by the number of applications for asylum and such.

Whoever is in power will keep immigration high because they have too ot the country fails very, very quickly.

Maybe people will not realise this straight away sadly? — I like sushi

I think it's pretty clear that a lot of politicians from wealthy nations, globally, are playing the immigration card to address demographic decline? Certainly the WEIRD world?

But I find it problematic that some hide this behind moral reasons for allowing immigration? I find the UK fascinating in this regard - I started reading conservative newspapers and websites a few years ago when I became concerned about living in a progressive bubble.

The coverage is so wildly different. So many progressive or centrist sources refuse to even mention issues like the small boat crossings, or the grooming gangs scandal - issues which obviously dominate on the right.

Our former PM used to scold critics of open-door immigration policies as racist - that strikes me as wildly unhelpful.

Have you or anyone else here read Eric Kaufmann's "Whiteshift"? The volume of data and analysis really helped me look at the issue outside of traditional ideological reference points.

The only thing I can be confident asserting is that immigration, globally, has become a fundamentally different enterprise in the past decade or so, and I fear too many politicians are stuck with old models.

The coverage is so wildly different. — Jeremy Murray

The news is necessarily hyperbolic and sensationalised. I do not pay that much attention to it to be honest other than as a means of understanding how they are falling prey to popular trends or how stories misrepresent and confound for political gain.

What is not being said is more interesting and pertinent most of the time. What is presented is usually trival slop made out to be vastly more significant than it actual is. This has been the case for the news industry ever since its conception.

Australia is an interesting case, since it has such a high rate of Superanuation.

Here in the U.K., the government raids the superannuation (national insurance) funds regularly.

I find the UK fascinating in this regard - I started reading conservative newspapers and websites a few years ago when I became concerned about living in a progressive bubble.

Bad timing, over the last few years (since the Brexit vote in 2016) the conservative leaning press in the U.K. has been going through a nervous breakdown, along with the Conservative Party. They finally lost touch with reality around the time of the 2019 general election and now are just babbling basket cases.

This is a serious problem in the U.K. because at least 90% of the media landscape is right leaning with maybe 40% veering sharply to the right. Even the one serious left leaning newspaper that’s left, The Guardian, has become more centrist now. There is no representation of the left outside of social media.

Still none of this has changed the rates of immigration at all. There was a sudden halt in the numbers coming over from EU countries, but this was rapidly replaced by migrants from outside the EU. The small boats issue, despite being an intractable problem only contributes 4% to the immigration figures. It is only being shouted about because the right wing press in desperation (following the demise of the Tory party), is throwing everything behind Farage and overt racism is becoming normalised now in that endeavour.

An interesting observation I heard from a prominent commentator the other day was that it is considered now far worse, to be accused of being racist than to actually be racist. Also we have the weird spectacle of people going around erecting British and English flags on lampposts (covertly overnight) and then shouting why are you taking down our flags, it’s unpatriotic (when no one is actually taking any down) and this is my country and my flag I can fly it whenever I want.

If you want a level headed (sane) commentary on U.K. politics you couldn’t do better than listen to James O’Brien, on LBC radio, on Global player, 10.00am until 1pm U.K. time every weekday. He has kept a lot of people sane during these interesting times.

I wonder what the thoughts are of the members of this forum on this subject. — dclements

One thing that is rarely mentioned is how long actually this decrease of fertility has been going on, because population growth has increased by infant mortality dramatically falling (thanks to modern medicine etc.) and people living longer.

I think the main issue here is that authorities and academics has a genuine problem to handle this issue as it relates also to changes in behavior that is very difficult to actually point out specifically. History has shown just how badly authorities have forecasted the future: China and Singapore are perfect examples of authorities thinking that population growth will create a crisis like famines etc. where the actual history shows a totally different outcome. If you create more prosperity, people simply will have less children. A quite universal outcome in every country that has become more prosperous.

The real question which seldom seems to be answered is how our economic system that is fundamentally based on growth can handle the decrease of global population. Our financial system simply needs growth, just like the pension system. When the whole system is based on debt, you need that perpetual growth. If Japan (or now South Korea) shows us what will happen, the future seems to be of anemic growth.

The news is necessarily hyperbolic and sensationalised. — I like sushi

If Elon Musk (and the kind) are worried about something, the issue will likely be treated as hyperbolic and sensationalized. Political discourse makes it so.

Yet this change won't be a dramatic event, but a thing that basically countries will cope, somehow, but it will have huge effects. Yet just like climate change, the real outcomes will be disguised as political crises that cannot be directly linked to such subtle change as this one. Just like climate change.

Same here. To general disgust and annoyance. It's still large enough to make a difference, and the point - that labour may be divorced from government revenue by policy - stands.

The real question which seldom seems to be answered is how our economic system that is fundamentally based on growth can handle the decrease of global population. Our financial system simply needs growth, just like the pension system. When the whole system is based on debt, you need that perpetual growth. If Japan (or now South Korea) shows us what will happen, the future seems to be of anemic growth. — ssu

Yet this won't be a dramatic event, but a thing that basically countries will cope, somehow, but it will have huge effects. Yet just like climate change, the real political outcomes will be disguised as crisis that cannot be directly linked to such subtle change as this one. — ssu

But you do see it now that the system will have to change... the stars are aligned (population decline, climate change, geopolitical shifts etc). Political crisis and conflict are typically the way these changes get implemented, in leaps and bounds, Trump is just the start of it.

But you do see it now that the system will have to change — ChatteringMonkey

I see the change coming with simply the society adapting to the "new normal" in a way that isn't obvious to everybody. Likely there's not going to be a "policy change" because of this because of the demographic transition, which btw. is now totally evident in Japan:



The consequences are basically hidden. Yet the fact is that population growth has been a key reason for economic growth: more people need more homes, more of everything, and the biggest investment ordinary people make is when they start a family, invest in a home raise children.

Once when the Stock bubble burst, the slow growth economy shows evidently in the Japanese stock market for decades. Let's face it, an investment strategy to buy the Nikkei index in 1989 wouldn't have been the best:



And then you have to take into account inflation, which makes the above graph even worse!

Hence when the we get the non-growth thanks to decreasing population, it will simple a prolonged recession with the symptoms that we are already seeing around us.

A lot more elderly people everywhere.

The difference now is that it will be happening on a global scale and in the centre of the 'empire' that conceived of and constituted the global order.

Also the Japanese are probably a little less prone to revolting than the western world.

There are these moments in history where a large enough group are fed up the current order and everything gets thrown in the balance, and you basically get a different system before and after.

Bookburnings and iconoclasm are not just some temporary outbursts of collective insanity, but a conscious effort to wipe away existing traditions. I think we might be due... but I hope you're right.