Display:
I will ask again: What is the cost of care of the elderly compared to the cost of care of the young? Because with  fewer births, you have fewer children to look after and educate. So, if the costs are similar, it seems not at all obvious to me that low birthrates means a larger costs for the dependant sections of society at all. Thus no need to up the retirement age.
My attempts to model population shrinkage. European Tribune - Socratic Economics XI: Demographics
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See Linca's point, which I think says it very well - 'declining populations needing subsidy' sounds like fear mongering of the 'And then they'll raise for taxes!!!' sort.

It's a stale old talking point. As you say, the numbers don't necessarily add up the way that CW has it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I most definitely appreciate and agree with Linca's point as well. There are many things wrong with the "ahh, old people will make us bankrupt" argument. And thus many assumptions to challenge. Anyway, it is my opinion that we seem to suffer from some bad over consumption/production as a society, visible in environmental and energy questions. However, in a 'growth first' society, this is not a point that is easily made. This is why I like to make a distinction between 'quality of life' and 'quantity of lifestyle'. Whereas the former can include such things as more time to spend with friends and family, the latter is clearly only a measure of the amount of consumption of fashionable goods one can afford.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that we can (and should) shrink population.
But too quick a shrink is next to unmanageable. Suddenly empty towns, infrastructure that needs to be stopped before it's obsolete, simply because there are fewer customers, while you need to retrain many people to care for the elderly when there are not enough coming out of the school system to fill the positions, immigration that no longer takes the time for integration...
And people tend to feel happier when there are children around (particularly old people).

So a good fertility rate target is not >2.1 indeed, but it's not 1.2 either. I would hazard 1.8 as a good target. I guess Russia, Germany, Italy and Spain really are rather low and will suffer, particularly in the countryside.
France and the UK in particular are too high.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 at 01:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could somebody explain to me why an exact number is always quoted as the ideal one? The population will increase a lot faster if every woman has two children at the age of 15, compared to having the same two children at 40. Obviously there is probably a strong correlation between the age one first has children, and the number of children, but is the correlation strong enough to be used for comparisons across cultures?
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 at 04:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a steady state, the population won't rise wether women have their 2.1 children when they are 15 or when they are 40. The transition from 40 to 15 would indeed mean a population rise, though.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 02:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right: I confused the two. So that the transition the other way means an additional population decrease.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 02:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't get suddenly empty towns even with 1.2 children per women (especially not if there is net immigration, as it tends to be in all EU countries you named). Internal migration has a much stronger effect on that front...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hadn't seen your diary before. I just skimmed through it now, and think it makes sense.

But there's still a big political problem, which I don't think was addressed there, namely that people usually will voluntarily support their children, even at a cost of a lower standard of living for themselves. Supporting the elderly will involve a transfer of resources from working people. These are resources that they would previously have been spending on their own children, but now have got used to spending on themselves. Raising the retirement age may be politically a lot easier than the alternatives.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 at 04:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These are resources that they would previously have been spending on their own children, but now have got used to spending on themselves.

Have they? We are talking about continuous transitions here.

Raising the retirement age may be politically a lot easier than the alternatives.

Raising the retirement age only makes sense if there are jobs to be taken (otherwise, we just shift the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:01:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have they? We are talking about continuous transitions here

I think so, as every childless family has more disposable income, and gets used to spending it. I agree that it's a continuous transition, but I think that's how continuous transitions work. Not that I'm not suggesting that childless families are spending lavishly - other expenses such as housing may also adjust to the ability to spend.

As to your second point, shifting the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits doesn't really make sense, as you say, unless the jobs are there. But the accepted wisdom seems to be that increasing the retirement age is necessary, while increasing taxes of any kind is bad. To oppose this means going against two pieces of accepted wisdom, which will be quite difficult, though hopefully not impossible.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As to your second point, shifting the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits doesn't really make sense, as you say, unless the jobs are there.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was that if the jobs aren't there, increasing retirement age will, in effect, only shift the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits (because more people are forced to stay in the labor force, thus more people can't find jobs).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry - I was drawing the conclusion from what you said, and I accidentally added the words "as you say". The question will be how to convince politicians to increase taxes, rather than raising the retirement age, and then treating unemployment as a completely unrelated problem.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series