"We need to make children to support the older generations"

[Revoltingest]

That's good.
So we agree on something.

Once every year!

 

[Stevicus]

It's paradoxical...indeed.
Because thanks to medicine, the mortality rate has collapsed.
As a consequence, the birth rates must collapse accordingly because the birth rate was much higher because of the high mortality rate.

In first world countries there has been a collapse of both the birth rate and the mortality rate. More or less proportioned.

In developing countries, the mortality rate has collapsed, but the birth rate has remained the same...which means, that the population is booming in those countries.

In any case, I don't think the human population is in danger of going extinct anytime soon.

I have heard the exact opposite, actually.
That the production is more and more mechanized, so fewer and fewer people are needed.

It depends on which industry. Some jobs can't be easily automated or mechanized just yet. Perhaps that may change as developments in AI advance further, but I've heard some places having trouble finding workers.

Maybe there are...but my point is about the problem of pensions:
as if we needed more babies so they will pay for old people's pensions in the future.

Which is absolutely absurd. The pension system is based upon the monetary circuit and the banking system.

Could be. I've heard mixed reviews about Social Security in the U.S. Some people say that it's doomed. Some propose privatizing it. There are quite a few people who fall through the cracks, and in general, social services in the U.S. could probably use a major overhaul.

 

[Estro Felino]

Could be. I've heard mixed reviews about Social Security in the U.S. Some people say that it's doomed. Some propose privatizing it. There are quite a few people who fall through the cracks, and in general, social services in the U.S. could probably use a major overhaul.

I would suggest to buzz the FED...
They know that the banking system was meant to advance the money the future generations will repay...
but unfortunately an elitist group of bankers consider banks their toy to become zillionaires.

 

[Estro Felino]

Once every year!

That doesn't mean I love unbridled Capitalism.
This woman was fired after telling her employer she was pregnant.

That is why I tell people: do not make babies. Because we cannot procreate in this squalid dystopian world ruled by merciless Capitalism.

 

[Alien826]

The problem seems to be (in first world countries at least) that the ratio of older people being supported by the taxes of younger working people has changed dramatically. There are several factors in play.

The increased life expectancy with better medical care.
The "baby boom" generation reaching retirement age.
The reduced income of the middle class.
And probably more that I can't think of.

To be more exact, it's the amount of money available to pay the retirement pensions that falls short, and that is a function of taxation. I believe there is enough money in the system to handle it, but the unequal distribution of wealth that we have means that the wealthy need to bear a much bigger proportion of the burden than they do now, and they are generally both unwilling to do so and able to avoid doing so, mostly in legal ways.

I personally don't think that increasing the birth rate is the answer. For other reasons, we need to reduce the Earth's population, not expand it. And it's a temporary problem anyway, as left alone, it will balance itself as the old folk die off.

I see a few possibilities. We can institute small measures like increasing the retirement age and maybe reducing the pensions marginally (in both cases not enough to cause hardship). We can actually make the rich pay more. We can borrow money to get over the "hump" (and make sure we repay it once the problem ends). We can move people around (immigration!) to balance populations for the benefit of all.

More likely, we will carry on refusing to do anything that inconveniences anyone, and go through a difficult time until it gets better on its own or climate change makes it irrelevant.

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem seems to be (in first world countries at least) that the ratio of older people being supported by the taxes of younger working people has changed dramatically. There are several factors in play.

I don't think so. Usually it's the older people who are far richer than the younger generations.
And for those who aren't that lucky, there is the State that has to provide them with a dignifying life.

The increased life expectancy with better medical care.
The "baby boom" generation reaching retirement age.
The reduced income of the middle class.
And probably more that I can't think of.

Of course. The collapse of mortality rate has been followed by a collapse of the birth rate. It's a consequence.
Because we need to take care of the elderly more, so we don't have the time to make new babies.

To be more exact, it's the amount of money available to pay the retirement pensions that falls short, and that is a function of taxation.

I don't think the taxation system is fair and just..since there are zillionaire bankers who cannot breathe, unless they gain their daily million of dollars.
So they would have a heart attack, if the taxes rose.

I believe there is enough money in the system to handle it, but the unequal distribution of wealth that we have means that the wealthy need to bear a much bigger proportion of the burden than they do now, and they are generally both unwilling to do so and able to avoid doing so, mostly in legal ways.

Exactly. So the State need to readjust the maldistribution of wealth through fair taxation.

I personally don't think that increasing the birth rate is the answer. For other reasons, we need to reduce the Earth's population, not expand it. And it's a temporary problem anyway, as left alone, it will balance itself as the old folk die off.

Exactly.

I see a few possibilities. We can institute small measures like increasing the retirement age and maybe reducing the pensions marginally (in both cases not enough to cause hardship).

Totally against. The elderly cannot be squeezed as lemon, until they die.
I think that the retirement age cannot surpass the sixty years.
Unless it's voluntary, after the sixty years.

We can actually make the rich pay more.

I agree: that's the solution. But they will say that without their daily million of dollars, they will have a seizure. Or a ictus.

We can borrow money to get over the "hump" (and make sure we repay it once the problem ends). We can move people around (immigration!) to balance populations for the benefit of all.

There is no need of borrowing anything.
The State prints the money, because the banking system advances the money, that will be reimbursed in the future by the GDP of the next years.
The money was created by the Greeks in the VI century, so it can be used as a tool ...to circulate.
Not to end up in the bankers' pockets.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't mean I love unbridled Capitalism.
This woman was fired after telling her employer she was pregnant.

That is why I tell people: do not make babies. Because we cannot procreate in this squalid dystopian world ruled by merciless Capitalism.

Under socialism, pregnant workers
were forced to have abortions (China).

If you want to reason from culled
bad examples, we could go on
indefinitely.

 

[Estro Felino]

Under socialism, pregnant workers
were forced to have abortions (China).

That's communism.
In socialist Scandinavia, pregnant women can stay home, and the State pays for their maternal leave (usually up to a year), and the woman doesn't lose her job.
For the record: we are a socialist State too, since public employers have paid vacations and paid maternal leave. By the State.

If you want to reason from culled
bad examples, we could go on
indefinitely.

They are not bad examples. That's the norm in the merciless unbridled Capitalism.

 

[Alien826]

I don't think so. Usually it's the older people who are far richer than the younger generations.
And for those who aren't that lucky, there is the State that has to provide them with a dignifying life.

Here (USA) people get the pension regardless of their income. They paid into it after all. Those with more additional income pay tax on a greater percentage of it. I'm one example. And a lot of how well off old people are depends on how much they have saved throughout their lives. Many can't afford to or just don't for whatever reason. I did.

Of course. The collapse of mortality rate has been followed by a collapse of the birth rate. It's a consequence.
Because we need to take care of the elderly more, so we don't have the time to make new babies.

I don't think it's a necessary direct connection. More affluence seems to lead to smaller afmilies.

I don't think the taxation system is fair and just..since there are zillionaire bankers who cannot breathe, unless they gain their daily million of dollars.
So they would have a heart attack, if the taxes rose.

So we tax their children?

Exactly. So the State need to readjust the maldistribution of wealth through fair taxation.

Yup. The problem is that great wealth allows them to buy more politicians and tax accountants.

Exactly.

Totally against. The elderly cannot be squeezed as lemon, until they die.
I think that the retirement age cannot surpass the sixty years.
Unless it's voluntary, after the sixty years.

Here the retirement age was originally 65. It was gradually increased until currently it's 67. I'd agree for those whose only income is Social Security, but many, can get by on less. (Don't tell anyone but that includes me).

I agree: that's the solution. But they will say that without their daily million of dollars, they will have a seizure. Or a ictus.

See above.

There is no need of borrowing anything.
The State prints the money, because the banking system advances the money, that will be reimbursed in the future by the GDP of the next years.
The money was created by the Greeks in the VI century, so it can be used as a tool ...to circulate.
Not to end up in the bankers' pockets.

So why do we have a gigantuan national debt?

Perhaps we can borrow from the Greeks? Seriously, yes I know that money is a medium of exchange and that the Government controls the amount in circulation, but they can't just print as much money as they want. I think that would lead to runaway inflation. (Economists please jump in here).

 

[Spice]

I was speaking of pensions, btw.
Of course young people support and help the elderly.

Unfortunately, no they don't in this era, unless they can't afford to live on their own. And then "the trade off" is very often lopsided.

 

[Spice]

The problem seems to be (in first world countries at least) that the ratio of older people being supported by the taxes of younger working people has changed dramatically. There are several factors in play.

The increased life expectancy with better medical care.
The "baby boom" generation reaching retirement age.
The reduced income of the middle class.
And probably more that I can't think of.

To be more exact, it's the amount of money available to pay the retirement pensions that falls short, and that is a function of taxation. I believe there is enough money in the system to handle it, but the unequal distribution of wealth that we have means that the wealthy need to bear a much bigger proportion of the burden than they do now, and they are generally both unwilling to do so and able to avoid doing so, mostly in legal ways.

I personally don't think that increasing the birth rate is the answer. For other reasons, we need to reduce the Earth's population, not expand it. And it's a temporary problem anyway, as left alone, it will balance itself as the old folk die off.

I see a few possibilities. We can institute small measures like increasing the retirement age and maybe reducing the pensions marginally (in both cases not enough to cause hardship). We can actually make the rich pay more. We can borrow money to get over the "hump" (and make sure we repay it once the problem ends). We can move people around (immigration!) to balance populations for the benefit of all.

More likely, we will carry on refusing to do anything that inconveniences anyone, and go through a difficult time until it gets better on its own or climate change makes it irrelevant.

Reduce the retirement age so that people can "step-down" in the workforce. The monthly checks would be greatly reduced, the SSDI numbers would be dramatically reduced, and older folks can ease into full retirement while opening up opportunities for the younger workers. Living longer doesn't make the body hold up to physical toll or mental stress, so even health care would benefit with a "step-down" OPTION for retirement.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't think it's a necessary direct connection. More affluence seems to lead to smaller afmilies.

In Europe it's the exact opposite.
In rich countries they have many more babies. Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark.
In the poorest countries, like Moldova, they have the lowest birth rates because they can't afford children.
So, since we are speaking of the West, I can assure you that the collapse of birth rate is directly linked to poverty.

So we tax their children?

No we tax the usurers of the macroeconomic system. Extra-profits.

Yup. The problem is that great wealth allows them to buy more politicians and tax accountants.

Yes, these politicians are easily bought off with thirty pieces of silver.
Thank God they will all die and there is a godly justice.

So why do we have a gigantuan national debt?

The debt is something positive, because it means that privates are rich and buy the governmental bonds.

Public debt= wealth for the private citizens.
This is the basics of macroeconomics. Do you know the economic circuit?

Perhaps we can borrow from the Greeks? Seriously, yes I know that money is a medium of exchange and that the Government controls the amount in circulation, but they can't just print as much money as they want. I think that would lead to runaway inflation. (Economists please jump in here).

Again: this is a baseless, nonsensical conjecture from the Monetarists.
They have never understood the monetary circuit, so they think that people will spend all the money they get.
Do you know that Y= S+I+C+XN?
And the S=I?
The saved money will be reinvested.

 

[Revoltingest]

In socialist Scandinavia....

Capitalist countries there, toots.

 

[Alien826]

In Europe it's the exact opposite.
In rich countries they have many more babies. Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark.
In the poorest countries, like Moldova, they have the lowest birth rates because they can't afford children.
So, since we are speaking of the West, I can assure you that the collapse of birth rate is directly linked to poverty.

I was talking generally. Here's a link.

Fertility Rate

How does the number of children vary across the world and over time? What is driving the rapid global change?

ourworldindata.org

Extract:

There are three major reasons for the rapid decline in the global fertility rate:

• the empowerment of women — increased access to education and increased labor market participation
• declining rates of child mortality
• rising costs of bringing up children, with the decline of child labor

The rest of your post is above my pay grade.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

So they can shove us in old folks homes and get their inheritance early? No thenkies! Besides we've got too many people and no natural predators. Supposedly we don't taste very good.

 

[Kfox]

This is the mantra we have been hearing in the European Union...from politicians of any political hue.
Which makes me really mystified. Not to say disgusted.
I wonder if they are serious, or they are in bad faith. I'd say the second.

It defies every logical reasoning of macroeconomics. Because the older generations don't need someone who works for them: they can retire and have their own pensions; those pensions will make the economy function. Monetary circuit: the basics of macroeconomics.

I start to think that this is a big lie whose purpose is to convince the younger generations, even those people who have zero parental vocation, to make children.
But the aim is because the big Capitalists need more and more young slaves to exploit and underpay.
They couldn't care less about the elderly.

The older generation is by far the richest demographic this Country has ever seen. Why not have the older generation that own the vast majority of the money support those who don't have as much?

 

[Estro Felino]

The older generation is by far the richest demographic this Country has ever seen. Why not have the older generation that own the vast majority of the money support those who don't have as much?

Well...it deals with people who cannot breathe unless they gain their daily million of dollars.
I guess that that's what they say in their Lord's prayer.
So I don't think they want to renounce that pleasure...they just want citizens to breed and make new babies, future slaves.

 

[We Never Know]

Looking at the overall population growth in the world, there still continues to be an increase, with plenty of children being born. But it's uneven, as the developing world shows higher birth rates than more developed areas which show population stagnation or even decline.

A common complaint I hear is that, as the Boomers retire, there aren't enough younger people to fill the jobs they used to do. The pandemic also exacerbated that situation, as many people chose early retirement rather than return to the office.

Then there are those who worry about being outnumbered or "replaced" by people who are of a different skin tone or speak a different language or come from a different culture.

As AI keeps advancing it will take more jobs from both the young and old.

 

[Soandso]

This thread reminds me of something I saw a while back...

Oof... Looks like trouble is on the horizon for older generations in Italy

 

[Estro Felino]

As AI keeps advancing it will take more jobs from both the young and old.

Yes.
And besides that, there are wonderful parents out there, but so many people lack parental vocation. So they should avoid.