> Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.[1]
At the rate our population is declining we as a country and society will need to rethink such basic social programs such as Medicare and social security.
In the long run, the only stable population shape ultimately is a column that is thicker at the base.
AFAIK you are correct.
Let me elaborate on this. Infinite growth Capitalism combined with technological development leads to a civilization whose citizens are constantly concerned with more, a nicer way to say this is growth. This in essence means greater and greater levels of consumption. Their entire existence, their brains, are wired for this hit from growth and progress. Buying a new phone, a new car, new clothes, promotions, salary increases, bigger houses, longer vacations, more sexual partners, etc. They are looking to constantly grow. Without that hit, they would very quickly become dejected and depressed.
But this all comes at a great cost. For one thing, people living for that hit don't live in the present, they are always oriented in the future giving up their entire present for a promise of a greater future which never comes, all they get is a hit along the way to that future and anticipation of next hit motivates them. And it's possible to have a psychology that is not set up to constantly seek this sort of hit. Therefore, for a person living with infinite growth capitalism, the transition is probably highly undesirable.
And even if infinite growth IS sustainable, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to have a system that requires it. There will be bumps and variations - one generation shouldn't suffer because next generation (be it by choice, environment, or war) has fewer members.
I happen to agree with the parent, not because "got mine", and it's not a "culling of people" but forgetting about social issues the world would be better off with less humans.
That will never happen though, because no nation wants to be disadvantaged when it comes to population sizes and many people take it as a god given right that their genes be the ones to proliferate.
But what's the point in having more of yourself if there's no planet left in 10 generations?
Even climate change isn't universally accepted, but it's an unfortunate fact and arguing about the semantics of it for another couple of decades isn't going to help anyone.
If 9/10 scientists agree, then I'm likely to side with them.
And in the case of overpopulation, 9/10 scientists agree.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/is-the-world-really-overpopulate...
From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc;
there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that.
But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does"
So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)
I mean, surely it's fundamentally understood that we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources. We're already causing mass extinctions.
I sound like a hippie, all I really expect from humanity is a little compassion for the people who we bore. It's an infinitely dull planet we leave behind if we continue this trend, and one that's increasingly hostile to our descendents.
That compassion should extend to not interfering with people's right to reproduce. "We're saving you by not allowing you to have children" sounds incredibly hostile.
Similar to how we tax things which we want to curtail use of, some countries might not tax the same thing and it causes an imbalance.
I'm not a politician, I'm an engineer and thus lack a lot of foresight and compassion that might be needed to understand this properly, but if I were responsible I'd probably approach it like this:
Step one: Identify the problem on a global scale, broach the idea with partner countries to enter an introductory treaty to at least acknowledge that we need to slow/reverse human population growth. Make objectives that ensure that our economies do not rely on population growth.
Step two: use the treaty to gain leverage over non-parner countries. Same rules, just acknowledge the problem and set some objectives to ensure that economies aren't tied to growth.
Step three, amend the treaties to slow the increase of the human race, ensure that partner countries bestow penalties on households with more than 2 children. (Additionally: Ensure that single parent households are only having one child, this could cause turmoil otherwise)
Step four, push for the reduction (or removal) of any benefits related to a second child birth, remove any/all income benefits for a second child, increase the benefits for a first child (must be a first child for both parents)
Step five, attempt to promote having a second child in media as a "very selfish" thing to do.
Step six, apply heavy taxes on dwellings more suited to 4 people families, attempt to reduce creation of such dwellings though tax incentives.
Step seven, finally, if everything fails, tax the families of those with more than a single child born after the date where this law is ratified.
If you really want to help, all you have to do is lobby to support economic development of the places that are the feedstock of western country population sustainment.
There's a very strong personal liberty counterargument, but then again overpopulation is dire and density itself also puts pressure on personal liberty.
A combo of education, women working in the workforce and easily available birth control and birth rates drop below replacement rate naturally, no special laws required.
After learning this, I'm really not worried about overpopulation as an environmental problem. The solutions are relatively easy to achieve compared to something like global warming.
It doesn't seem as cut and dry as just number of people when the the tax has a cap. The flat cap placed on taxable income seems a bit insane when the wealthiest people have seen exponential growth for decades. While at the same time, we have a shrinking middle class with wages that have failed to match inflation.
Essentially so much of the money in the economy is earned above the taxable level that it's not surprising we cannot sustain social programs.
All of that is riding on the fact that there will be jobs for these people. As more and more jobs get pushed overseas or are automated away that doesn't seem realistic. So how can they contribute to the system?
> Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy).
Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population.
Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits.
>Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
You can think of it like that, but then you have to explain the taxes. Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share. If you remove the caps then this logic doesn't work anymore and it will be yet another tax where the government breaks their promise. I personally don't care if there are caps or not since it will never affect me.
>You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population.
Yes, it is a global issue. But, unfortunately, I am less confident we can solve for issues that affect the global population. Maybe we will learn from our climate change issue that preventative measures must be taken. Reactionary responses will be too late.
>Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits.
And while I agree some level of automation will help. What you describe in your last sentence is already happening in the US, and we are making no attempt to accommodate our tax structure to these changes. The bleed
>Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share.
Interesting, I was not aware. But wouldn't this be true for other things the government provides? Such as public roads and the like? When we have Amazon paying $0 in federal tax, but shipping products using public roads...we subsidize them. Or when the richest folk do the same by storing trillions of dollars in tax havens...we subsidize them.
So maybe we should have this conversation again once we convince folks to pay their fair share. :)
Cheers!
If someone is unsuccessfully trying to conceive then they most definitely are hurting. The decision to have offspring is a personal one and it's actually quite scary for people to extend their own decision to not reproduce to others.
If you don't want to have kids, great, more power to you. To say that other people should not be having children is authoritarian bordering on eugenics.
Especially not the one dog which bit me in the calf a couple of hours ago, or the idiot owner who was 10 yards away and did not even try to call it back, not before, not during, not after. I was the one being hurt :-) I don't know about their sperm quality, but I have seen zero progress amongst farmers, who 40 years ago when I was a back-country kid wouldn't train their dog the smallest bit, and 40 years later still don't do anything about it in the mountains where I live now. Even the most shitfaced gutter punk trains his dog more, cares for it more and cares for what it may do more than those guys.
Yeah, I know, that was off-topic, but I had to tell it ;-)