I don’t see that though. I see young people skating and biking in every town.
Do you mean e-scootering and e-biking?
Actually, the ones I see on e bikes are mostly elder adults. Likely receiving social security and they can afford an e bike but not a car payment and car insurance. I see young people skateboarding everywhere. I do see young people ride e-scooters sometimes. One thing I have not seen in over a decade is in-line skating from practically anyone. It’s strange. Everyone including myself used to rollerblade. I’d like to research why that consumer demand shifted away.
In 1986, pharmaceutical companies extorted the US Congress into giving it the best business model in the world: no lawsuits for vaccine products that are mandated by law to be injected into children -- products that have neve...
even Mexico and a good chunk of Latin America, once stereotyped as a region that popped out babies like hotcakes, is now below the population replacement rate. Chile is abysmal at 1.10 babies per woman. Colombia is below the replacement rate and still falling.
Then we come to Europe. Oh, Europe. Every country in Europe is below the replacement rate, most countries are well below. There are actually quite a few countries below 1.3 (Italy, Poland, the Baltic countries, Austria, Romania, Greece, Spain, Portugal and more).
And finally Asia where the two most developed countries - Japan and Korea - have now less than 1 baby per woman on average.
The decline doesn't seem to have bottomed out yet, except in Korea where they slightly increased births last year. But when you're starting out as the lowest in the world, a slight improvement isn't much.
Long term, whites (Europeans), Asians and Latinos will start to rapidly decline in their total population. Actually, maybe not so long term.
Africans will replace them, Africa's population is booming.
Our polluted food supply and water is a big factor, chemicals and plastic residue is in everything thanks to corporate profits. Also, women are fully in the workforce and dealing with crazy stress so five plus kids are no longer an option.
As an example Dominican Republic is the blue print us conservatives follow, they have a total abortion ban but yet birth rate has dropped to 2. DR was the first with the wall for Haitians and prison camps/mass deportations.
India has gone negative, and Africa is the last of the positive birth rate countries.
China has been in decline now for 40 years, the one child policy and famines of the Mao era. Way under replacement from 1.7 per couple to 1.2 per couple.
Chinese hold two to four official IDs with different names, they buy them ... from the government, which is a long time thing, everybody does it on all sides so there is no one to arrest.
Korea are in suicide mode metaphorically speaking with half the replacement population being born, Japan is not so far behind.
There are a multitude of factors, which are direct, gradual and micro eugenics programs, which are not under way, but in the middle to end, in that the acceleration death, of "industrial diseases" cancer, heart, inflammation from food chain pesticides phthalates in plastics etc. long term exposure is just now kicking into high gear, as it takes decades ....
So the projection worldwide, accelerated decline in birth rate is a replacement rate of 1 per couple, which is a halving of the population per generation.
This is a mathematical thing, and nothing else.
The contrarians need to do the math before speaking.
India has gone negative, and Africa is the last of the positive birth rate countries.
China has been in decline now for 40 years, the one child policy and famines of the Mao era. Way under replacement from 1.7 per couple to 1.2 per couple.
Chinese hold two to four official IDs with different names, they buy them ... from the government, which is a long time thing, everybody does it on all sides so there is no one to arrest.
Korea are in suicide mode metaphorically speaking with half the replacement population being born, Japan is not so far behind.
There are a multitude of factors, which are direct, gradual and micro eugenics programs, which are not under way, but in the middle to end, in that the acceleration death, of "industrial diseases" cancer, heart, inflammation from food chain pesticides phthalates in plastics etc. long term exposure is just now kicking into high gear, as it takes decades ....
So the projection worldwide, accelerated decline in birth rate is a replacement rate of 1 per couple, which is a halving of the population per generation.
This is a mathematical thing, and nothing else.
The contrarians need to do the math before speaking.
And if you look at African growth rates over a longer time span, say the last three decades, most of the countries in that continent have had the growth rate steadily decline. Even countries that probably stick out to you, if you check sources like the CIA World Fact Book, might seem high at like 11%, but check the rate from 20 years ago and it was almost double that. So those comparative growth rates will continue to decline with the rest of the world’s.
“It’s a mathematical thing and nothing else.” Not exactly. There are a number of issues with statistical mathematical demographic computer models in their ability to accurately project outcomes. The rates themselves can be questioned because of limitations in observing populations as just fractional segments from a much larger whole. Researchers don’t have resources for highly accurate estimates. The confidence intervals are too large.
Having said that, I do think the evidence shows that population growth decline is a global phenomenon. It’s easy to see that information from hospital newborn records, school student enrollment, Census surveys and other sources that decline is likely the case.
The contrarians you allude to are correct for not just blindly believing statistics, but I have seen posts on this thread where some are just rejecting population decline outright because of their own personal views or agendas. That of course is irrational and obstinate.
My wife and I bought or house in 2010 for $290,000. A typical household with typical careers could afford this house while having kids.
Our house right now is valued at a little over $650,000. You need to be pulling in a household income of $150K + to qualify. That is without kids.
Almost need to decide in our neck of the woods on having kids and live in an apartment or no kids and you can buy a house.
Exactly my point. It’s too expensive and the cost structures for housing and other luxury goods as you and your wife climb the income ladder are such that it provides almost a kind of negative incentive to have children. Why work hard your whole careers to be able to finally afford an over half a million dollar home when if you make the choice to have children, you can no longer afford the home? It’s the no-win that a lot of couples find themselves in. If they want the same 650 grand house and children together there’s two ways: increase income even more or the cost of the same 650 grand house must decrease. Both are difficult outcomes and may lay beyond control.
What could be changed? Perhaps some kind of legislation to cap progressive housing prices. 290 grand to 650 grand is an over 100% price hike? Why!!!? There’s no way the price is actually that much more expensive in real terms. The realty company and the contractors can charge that much because nobody is stopping them! It’s unmitigated greed at the expense of a high income couple who wants to start a family.
Some may accuse you and your wife of being shallow, but that isn’t the case. Let’s say you both work in medicine or law and laying down 80 hour weeks in high stress environments paying outrageous interest rates on student loans. You deserve that 650 grand house. You shouldn’t have to live in some shabby apartment with the newborn crying because of noise from the drug bust next door! It’s an unfair system that punishes hard work and success!
I don’t think legislation is the answer. Why pass a law that interferes with the contractors and realtors’ rights to maximize profits? That sounds like a socialist housing policy some of which drove housing values down in the first place. It’s not their fault when someone can’t afford to buy a house at their listing price.
In your last paragraph you built a straw man. You illustrated a comic book caricature of this guy and his wife. You have no idea how shallow they are or aren’t and your version of apartment living is so negatively stereotyped that it’s laughable.
Exactly my point. It’s too expensive and the cost structures for housing and other luxury goods as you and your wife climb the income ladder are such that it provides almost a kind of negative incentive to have children. Why work hard your whole careers to be able to finally afford an over half a million dollar home when if you make the choice to have children, you can no longer afford the home? It’s the no-win that a lot of couples find themselves in. If they want the same 650 grand house and children together there’s two ways: increase income even more or the cost of the same 650 grand house must decrease. Both are difficult outcomes and may lay beyond control.
What could be changed? Perhaps some kind of legislation to cap progressive housing prices. 290 grand to 650 grand is an over 100% price hike? Why!!!? There’s no way the price is actually that much more expensive in real terms. The realty company and the contractors can charge that much because nobody is stopping them! It’s unmitigated greed at the expense of a high income couple who wants to start a family.
Some may accuse you and your wife of being shallow, but that isn’t the case. Let’s say you both work in medicine or law and laying down 80 hour weeks in high stress environments paying outrageous interest rates on student loans. You deserve that 650 grand house. You shouldn’t have to live in some shabby apartment with the newborn crying because of noise from the drug bust next door! It’s an unfair system that punishes hard work and success!
I don’t think legislation is the answer. Why pass a law that interferes with the contractors and realtors’ rights to maximize profits? That sounds like a socialist housing policy some of which drove housing values down in the first place. It’s not their fault when someone can’t afford to buy a house at their listing price.
In your last paragraph you built a straw man. You illustrated a comic book caricature of this guy and his wife. You have no idea how shallow they are or aren’t and your version of apartment living is so negatively stereotyped that it’s laughable.
It’s not socialism. There are legislative price caps on several industries; energy, automotive, transportation, airline tickets, etc. Housing is one that is needed.
And I didn’t build a straw man. I took the information the dude provided and utilized it as a hypothetical meta example that would apply to several people in his position. You are the one building a straw man. Also, you’re telling me there is not more crime in apartment neighboorhoods than in wealthy suburban ones? We’re this politically correct now?
I don’t think legislation is the answer. Why pass a law that interferes with the contractors and realtors’ rights to maximize profits? That sounds like a socialist housing policy some of which drove housing values down in the first place. It’s not their fault when someone can’t afford to buy a house at their listing price.
In your last paragraph you built a straw man. You illustrated a comic book caricature of this guy and his wife. You have no idea how shallow they are or aren’t and your version of apartment living is so negatively stereotyped that it’s laughable.
It’s not socialism. There are legislative price caps on several industries; energy, automotive, transportation, airline tickets, etc. Housing is one that is needed.
And I didn’t build a straw man. I took the information the dude provided and utilized it as a hypothetical meta example that would apply to several people in his position. You are the one building a straw man. Also, you’re telling me there is not more crime in apartment neighboorhoods than in wealthy suburban ones? We’re this politically correct now?
It is Socialism. You are actively interfering with firms’ ability to maximize profits and instead mandating quotas. What else do you call that? The fact that other firms you mentioned in other industries have price ceilings does not mean they should, or that you should add housing to the list.
It’s not socialism. There are legislative price caps on several industries; energy, automotive, transportation, airline tickets, etc. Housing is one that is needed.
And I didn’t build a straw man. I took the information the dude provided and utilized it as a hypothetical meta example that would apply to several people in his position. You are the one building a straw man. Also, you’re telling me there is not more crime in apartment neighboorhoods than in wealthy suburban ones? We’re this politically correct now?
It is Socialism. You are actively interfering with firms’ ability to maximize profits and instead mandating quotas. What else do you call that? The fact that other firms you mentioned in other industries have price ceilings does not mean they should, or that you should add housing to the list.
It is Socialism. You are actively interfering with firms’ ability to maximize profits and instead mandating quotas. What else do you call that? The fact that other firms you mentioned in other industries have price ceilings does not mean they should, or that you should add housing to the list.
By 2070 there will be 120 retirees for every 100 workers in South Korea.
South Korea is not an outlier. They’re just a decade or so ahead of the curve.
That is no where near 70%. 2070 is 45 years from now. Do you doubt AI and automation will be significantly advanced by then? 45 years ago people were using rotary dial on their landline phones and smoking on airplanes.
How advanced does it need to be to take the burden off workers. Imagine if for every dollar you earned, another $1.5 dollars were needed to support the elderly.
You good with 60% tax rates?
You’re betting on a massive, massive gain in productivity. Bigger than the computer and internet revolutions gave.
Current rates of productivity increase will not be enough. You’d have to bet that AI will be completely transformative? That seems like dangerous optimism. If you’re wrong civilization implodes
India has gone negative, and Africa is the last of the positive birth rate countries.
China has been in decline now for 40 years, the one child policy and famines of the Mao era. Way under replacement from 1.7 per couple to 1.2 per couple.
Chinese hold two to four official IDs with different names, they buy them ... from the government, which is a long time thing, everybody does it on all sides so there is no one to arrest.
Korea are in suicide mode metaphorically speaking with half the replacement population being born, Japan is not so far behind.
There are a multitude of factors, which are direct, gradual and micro eugenics programs, which are not under way, but in the middle to end, in that the acceleration death, of "industrial diseases" cancer, heart, inflammation from food chain pesticides phthalates in plastics etc. long term exposure is just now kicking into high gear, as it takes decades ....
So the projection worldwide, accelerated decline in birth rate is a replacement rate of 1 per couple, which is a halving of the population per generation.
This is a mathematical thing, and nothing else.
The contrarians need to do the math before speaking.
You make good points but the part of about “micro eugenics” is wrong. People are living longer than ever. There’s no insidious plot to poison people. It’s precisely these long lifetimes that amplify the issue of smaller and small working cohorts supporting a huge amount of elderly.
That is no where near 70%. 2070 is 45 years from now. Do you doubt AI and automation will be significantly advanced by then? 45 years ago people were using rotary dial on their landline phones and smoking on airplanes.
It would only be a temporary 70% anyway. The percentage of retirees will decline quickly with deaths and with less and less people to replenish the retiree pool due to declining birth rates. So a graph would show a downward sloped line illustrating an inverse relationship between birthrates (declining) and total number of retirees supported by remaining working taxpayers.
I’m not sure what you mean. As long as birth rates are not at replacement, the older generation will always be larger than the younger one.
Yes, the population of the elderly declines, but the population of the working age declines even faster.
It would only be a temporary 70% anyway. The percentage of retirees will decline quickly with deaths and with less and less people to replenish the retiree pool due to declining birth rates. So a graph would show a downward sloped line illustrating an inverse relationship between birthrates (declining) and total number of retirees supported by remaining working taxpayers.
I’m not sure what you mean. As long as birth rates are not at replacement, the older generation will always be larger than the younger one.
Yes, the population of the elderly declines, but the population of the working age declines even faster.
I don’t know about that.
Average total years estimate for worker productivity: 18-68 or 50 years.
Average total years for retirees before death: 68-85 or 17 years.
Of course these are averages, some people retire at 65, some at 80, some work until death. But I think this shows that the elderly population declines faster than the working age population. 17 years retired is less than half of 50 years of working.