Population decline isn’t all bad. A labor shortage would finally cause wages to move upwards, no? One of the big reasons folks in the 1950s could be paid well for lowish skilled jobs was the small labor pool employees were willing to pick from.
> Unfortunately, a sustained population loss would be incompatible with economic growth. Fewer people would mean a decline in business activity, imminent labor shortages and a worsening age imbalance that would leave more senior citizens without enough caregivers.<p>Same old reasoning that we've heard a million different times.<p>Can't we simply increase immigration when needed. Japan is a bad example because they are a xenophobic population that doesn't accept immigration. Tired of this this bullshit take every single time.
"Fewer people would ... leave more senior citizens without enough caregivers."<p>I think we should first try making Senior Caregiving a competitive field, by paying a living wage. I realize that might make shareholders and healthcare lobbyists grumpy - but as a nation, I think we could weather that storm.
That's a funny way of saying "we have designed our country like a pyramid scheme where paying the bills requires an ever broadening population base to cover the last generations debts.
Propaganda. Psychological warfare. Look at the rest of the anonymous articles by “the editors”. You should know exactly what they’ll suggest to ‘fix’ the problem.
"Unfortunately, a sustained population loss would be incompatible with economic growth."<p>This is a pretty hefty dose of globalist neoliberalism right there.<p>I think we may want to put question marks around 'rapidly declining population' as 'a problem to consider' (In Japan it's decline in birth, Hungary it's emigration) with existential considerations and consequences.<p>But the 'warm bodies is growth' mentality which is actually part and parcel of the industrial revolution ... needs to be rethought.<p>US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil etc. need to think about this a little more.
This sounds like an argument from the same voters who are losing their jobs to automation. They just don't have the experience or education to comprehend how various forms of automation generate far greater productivity gains than more warm bodies.
These arguments are always hogwash, crying about the economy while not providing any labor regulation or economic support to people who have children (paid time off, subsidized child care, etc). They should be ignored.<p>The lower the total fertility rate, the better for planetary resource consumption and contention issues.
The US government could do a lot more to assist with childcare (grants, subsidizing daycare, etc) but it would involve taking money from rich people in the form of taxes, so it's unlikely to happen.