But on a second examination, there is something else potentially amiss here. Children and the old have one thing in common. They are not economically productive, and they require resources for their survival. Yet, somehow, the old are in this type of article considered only a burden, and the young, only a benefit in terms of future workers.

Ha! This is an idea I tried to communicate in my very first diary on ET, An Amateur Economist's Quibbles, returned to in 2006, and again in a comment thread debating one of our past trolls. To recap and emphasize again:

1. Relative numbers matter more than absolute numbers.
   
   Where do you want to live: a country whose population grew 50% while its GDP grew 25%, or a country whose population shrunk by 50% while its GDP shrunk by 25%?

2. For the pupose of social budgets, when considering the entire economy, the only thing that matters is the ratio of wage-earners and supported persons.
   
   What proportion of the latter receive pensions, jobless benefits, incapacity and social benefits, charity support, beggars' money, support from family members (be them housewifes, grannies, children), childcare benefits and education funds, is - detail.

3. The first-order effect of demographic changes (as well as policy and rule changes) is only to shift population percentages between different categories of suported people. The improvement of the budget in one narrow social area goes with the worsening in another.
   
   This diary considers one shift: aging; reduced ratio of supported children while there are more retired people. But, you can shift from jobless to retired (by changing the retirement age), from jobless to incapacity benefit (done in Britain, as we discussed often), from the previous to family support and beggars (by cutting state social benefits).

From the viewpoint of private companies, population growth might be attractive for two reasons, both more psychological than real: (1) growth is positive, and simply grow while the pie grows too is easier than battle for a bigger slice of a shrinking pie; (2) companies hope that supply will outstrip demand on the labour market, reducing their labour costs. (On the longer term, the latter doesn't mean much: population growth will also increase demand for products, and thus companies' demand for labour...)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.