Population decline = endless recession.

Logos Stick said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Why is the low birth rate such a big issue? If we lost 90% of our population it would put us back to the 1800s, but with modern technology. Would that be so bad?

---

Let me take a more realistic approach. Suppose you reduce population by 10% over a few years. Suppose the reduction was evenly distributed across geography.

Consider roads and bridges. Consider power utilities. You wouldn't reduce the number of miles of roads by 10%. You wouldn't reduce the miles of power lines and number of electrical poles by 10% and you wouldn't reduce number of power plants. But you would reduce the labor to produce, operate and service by 10% at least.

That means the roads will go to hell since most of the damage is done by exposure to the elements. There are 10% fewer workers to make repairs. There are 10% fewer workers to make the asphalt and concrete to repair the roads. There are 10% fewer workers to produce the oil and gravel for the asphalt. 10% fewer people to transport all that stuff. The entire supply chain is affected. It means power failures will take much longer to fix after a storm . It also means fewer engineers and operators at power plants. Yet we'd still have the same number of plants, just less electricity being produced. Does that put us at jeopardy of not being able to run some plants?

It would have a very negative ripple effect.

---

True, there are some infrastructure that requires a constant level of maintenance. But there would also be 10% fewer homes needing these infrastructures. 10% fewer homes to build roads, powerlines and plumbing to. 10% less usage of these infrastructures with 10% less wear and tear.

It's a complex equation that has challenges and benefits

The USA still has an aging population. People are living longer. How do you have enough people paying into the social safety net (welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) with fewer people and an aging population? 10% fewer doctors, cops, emergency services….

valvemonkey91 said:

---

The USA still has an aging population. People are living longer. How do you have enough people paying into the social safety net (welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) with fewer people and an aging population? 10% fewer doctors, cops, emergency services….

---

Do you need the same number of doctors, cops, emergency services when you have fewer people?

I like the Italian PM quite a bit.

There's something seriously wrong with the west if you can't even get Italians to breed.

TexAgs91 said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

The USA still has an aging population. People are living longer. How do you have enough people paying into the social safety net (welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) with fewer people and an aging population? 10% fewer doctors, cops, emergency services….

---

Do you need the same number of doctors, cops, emergency services when you have fewer people?

---

It seems like you are assuming a 1:1 scale down with population and skill sets. It won't be that clean if we aren't planning what's really needed from people to maintain existing infrastructure as we ramp down.

Everyone just assumes "automation" and AI will resolve all of this. That's a big damn assumption.

The drop in the European birth rate is why you see many of the economic policies in countries such as Hungary. However that is where you also see the split between the conservative/populists in places like Hungary and the warmed over libertarianism of most of the "conservatives" in the US (and on this board.)

Congratulations Italian PM on your brand new bouncing baby African-Italian-American baby in 9 months

On the plus side, a replacement issue with the birth rate will favor the religious segments of the population which are far more likely to be on the conservative end of the spectrum. Combine that with voting data that seems to show that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants are more likely to lean towards the right and you have a conservative majority in 1-2 generations.