We need to start talking about population decline

[user4567890754]

The first signs of it are starting to show in the UK, with primary school closures. Secondary school closures will follow.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/11158f12-0133-11ee-a364-04e704863f75?shareToken=5ef47b2b4776be376153089146c8bacf

Italy is a few years ahead of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/plunging-birthrate-threatens-italian-schools

Japan shows where every country is headed - towards a crisis where they are on the brink of being unable to maintain social functions.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/asia/japan-population-decline-record-drop-intl-hnk/index.html

And yet there are still people who think that we have a problem with overpopulation. It’s the opposite.

This is why Prince William can fuck off with his statements about developing world should have less children. He has 3 children born into obscene wealth with more houses than they will ever know what to do with, private air travel (despite them pretending they fly commercial everywhere) etc. Each of his kids will have a carbon footprint higher than whole tower blocks of families in the UK let alone in comparison to the developing world.

Regardless, climate change is our most pressing problem, on our current trajectory we will see terrible suffering in the next 50 years.

But the shift demographic is having impacts now. You're saying do nothing because of climate change?

shifting

This is why Prince William can fuck off with his statements about developing world should have less children

I thought that was outrageous tbh but I guess it shows how out of touch he is.

100% this.

Oh what a shame, fewer humans. However will the planet manage.

Why is it so awful that your children will have to (or choose to) wait longer before having children? Nothing wrong with that at all. Better than starting at 22 and having loads, so that more and more houses and flats will need to be built to house them all and more trees cut down and animals eaten and pollution produced.

I didn’t state a country as I haven’t actively researched - I was venting online which is ok. I just stated I would love to go to a younger country as I’m fucked off with being bled dry and seeing quality of life reducing.

There must be countries who aren’t in as an advanced ageing process as the UK that aren’t at the other extreme end either. Or with different economic models which mean the impact is less severe. It doesn’t have to be either UK/Japan or Nigeria/Afganistan. There may be countries a few decades behind us or ones where state finances aren’t so poorly managed.

This would make more sense in a world where capital wasn’t mobile. However, that’s not this world. Taxing the wealth currently in this country, that will stay in this country, will only have short term impact. What happens when that well runs dry and funds haven’t been replaced?

There’s already a net outflow of higher earners. This results in, along with a myriad of other things, a higher burden being placed on those with less. The UK needs to attract wealth and what it brings with it, not compound the issue by encouraging further stagnation and decline.

I always think when talking about wealth tax it's main point is to address the intergenerational inequality. So it's not about targeting the Jeff's of the world it's Dave down the road in his 1.2m house with his seaside btl. Those older people aren't particularly mobile...

I agree we are taxing income heavily, the higher band should be far higher.

Young people grow old.
So in seventy years time there will be fewer old people.
I know, right? - very difficult concept to grasp.

I know, right? - very difficult concept to grasp.

That's a bit rich, you've been on the thread a long time but are struggling with the fact the the OP is taking about the interim period not seventy yrs time!

😆

Unless we keep relentlessly breeding and then there will be even more elderly people in 70 years time.

All this virtue-signalling from the left about how we should help and fund poor people to have more and more children.

And pressure from the right to breed more low-paid workers to act as labour.

Both achieve the same result - human life having lower and lower value as we crowd up on top of each other more and more in dense housing or no housing at all. So many city children worldwide who have never seen a horse or a field or a forest and never will.

So you’re only looking to solve a problem in the short term for your own gain. No interest in a long term view or future generations at all.

Unless we keep relentlessly breeding and then there will be even more elderly people in 70 years time.

Even more elderly people in 70 yrs time then there is now?

Who is relentless breeding?

So you’re only looking to solve a problem in the short term for your own gain. No interest in a long term view or future generations at all.

What have I said on the thread that has made you think thar?! 😆

Do you think that there should be more young people produced now to look after the old? Because if you do, that is a short term view. Kicking it down the road, as several pps have said.

I do have 2 dc & am fully aware my carbon footprint is bigger than a family in Sahara with 4 dc. I do understand the reasons people should have dc. I also think society's with only old people isn't a great thing.

I presume you don't have dc?

Do you think that there should be more young people produced now to look after the old? Because if you do, that is a short term view. Kicking it down the road, as several pps have said.

There is nuance though. If people want dc but can't due to affordability then there is an issue & as I said society needs a balance of ages for progress & growth & then there is economic factors. There needs to be far more balance of tax across the spectrum to support the shift so that social care & nhs can function.

I’m not sure where would fit the bill

Aus and NZ have high difficulty with housing availability, G7 is declining, U.K. still in top ten apparently in 2050 but France out and Italy dropping from top 20 (iirc on that last one)

BRICS going up the chart so any of those will be wealthier over time, whether it is easier for all income levels of population idk

Maybe a Scandinavian country, tax is heavy though and other rich countries just don’t let everyone in

This is the median age list I reckon most people on here would scroll a fair bit past first section, Ireland maybe? It’s a bit younger but U.K. isn’t actually that pronounced and you get there before many Scandinavian and other EU countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

There may be somewhere, I’m not sure if I’ve missed one that stands out as particularly good

All this virtue-signalling from the left about how we should help and fund poor people to have more and more children.

So you think only rich people should be able to have dc? Because that will improve social mobility. If you're going to dictate who can & can't have dc I would start by using intelligence as a marker!

Oh what a shame, fewer humans. However will the planet manage

Did a human post this or AI? 😆

Surely that depends, if social mobility is poor all you’re doing is encouraging the poor to have more wage slaves for the rich. More cheap labour and less power for those actual children, rare things are seen as a resource

I don’t think you read my full post.

Everyone thinks they themselves are of above average intelligence.

Surely that depends, if social mobility is poor all you’re doing is encouraging the poor to have more wage slaves for the rich.

I said pages back I favour a wealth tax & more investment in families. I don't really understand the hand wringing about wage slaves. Im one, virtually everyone I know is one. That's capitalism for you.