I apologise if this is tragically uninformed, but I have tried to research the issue (okay, I've read Wikipedia), I've watched news coverage when it comes up and have discussed it with other, better informed people. So I did try.
Most developed countries appear to be experiencing lower birth rates and longer life expectancy. The consequence of which being that our mean and median ages are shifting ever upwards. A notable exception to the rule is the US of course, which continues to experience high birth rates which keep the average age down (interestingly, this was mentioned on the news this morning and it was pointed out that 50% of those under the age of 3 are considered to be from 'minority' backgrounds. They didn't explain what specifically was causing this trend, but I wondered if the attraction of dual citizenship is playing a part and if this is significant enough to be contributing to the lower average age.).
When I was dating that guy from Germany, I remember getting into one of my rants about how worrying the rate of population growth is.. He pointed out that Germany was experiencing problems because people aren't having enough babies. I asked him why that's such a problem and he said it was due to the cost of caring for the infirm.
Okay... I can see that. But..
A lot of these people have considerable amounts of wealth squirrelled away in bank accounts. With luck, they'll live a long and healthy life and pass this wealth on to some ungrateful snot who will either waste it (but at least get it circulating in the economy again), or will squirrel it away in their own bank accounts. OR, maybe these people will need social care. If so, this squirrelled money will have to go towards care costs (and re-enter the economy).. we'll need more carers of course.. job creation. Of course, as there are fewer younger people, the job market will be more competitive in favour of the job seeker. So payment, work conditions and status of those in the care industry would need to be improved to attract enough people into those jobs.. a good thing! In time, the elderly will die off, population will stabilize. There'll be fewer of working age competing for jobs, so unemployment will drop. We'll know we will live longer, so will of course have to pay a chunk of our wages into pensions to prepare for that, but everyone will be doing so so wages and the cost of living would eventually settle out to reflect that, in much the same way as wages and the cost of living changed to reflect the movement from a single breadwinner being the 'norm', to both parents working (making staying at home out of reach for many parents.. which is another issue altogether). Those fewer babies will grow into fewer adults. Sure, if life expectancy then continues to expand, the average age will continue to increase, but it should also be pointed out that while we're living longer, this doesn't mean we're spending significantly longer in poor health, so need caring for longer. It seems that we're actually enjoying good health for longer. So it's more that rather than needing care between the age of 75 and 85, you need it from 85 to 95.
It would be tough to begin with while we adapt our lifestyles to the change, but we HAVE to move beyond the exponential growth phase and do what my textbooks said has to happen, and enter the stationary phase. We must be near capacity by now. I just can't agree that 'have more babies' is the answer. The elderly will still need to be cared for whether or not we have babies, but there are also the costs of childcare that needs to be subsidised if lower income parents are to afford to go to work, there is the cost of reducing and preventing child poverty. It just seems like a very short-sighted answer to me. Letting this ride it's course seems like the better solution to the population growth issue. It's that or disease, war and natural disasters (the latter of course, not being in our control, even if you could argue the climate change we caused is increasing the frequency of such events). I know what I'd prefer.
What do you think? Am I seeing this through rose tinted glasses, or should we applauding the reduced birth rate, enjoying our longer, healthier lives, and meeting the challenges of an ageing population as it happens?
Most developed countries appear to be experiencing lower birth rates and longer life expectancy. The consequence of which being that our mean and median ages are shifting ever upwards. A notable exception to the rule is the US of course, which continues to experience high birth rates which keep the average age down (interestingly, this was mentioned on the news this morning and it was pointed out that 50% of those under the age of 3 are considered to be from 'minority' backgrounds. They didn't explain what specifically was causing this trend, but I wondered if the attraction of dual citizenship is playing a part and if this is significant enough to be contributing to the lower average age.).
When I was dating that guy from Germany, I remember getting into one of my rants about how worrying the rate of population growth is.. He pointed out that Germany was experiencing problems because people aren't having enough babies. I asked him why that's such a problem and he said it was due to the cost of caring for the infirm.
Okay... I can see that. But..
A lot of these people have considerable amounts of wealth squirrelled away in bank accounts. With luck, they'll live a long and healthy life and pass this wealth on to some ungrateful snot who will either waste it (but at least get it circulating in the economy again), or will squirrel it away in their own bank accounts. OR, maybe these people will need social care. If so, this squirrelled money will have to go towards care costs (and re-enter the economy).. we'll need more carers of course.. job creation. Of course, as there are fewer younger people, the job market will be more competitive in favour of the job seeker. So payment, work conditions and status of those in the care industry would need to be improved to attract enough people into those jobs.. a good thing! In time, the elderly will die off, population will stabilize. There'll be fewer of working age competing for jobs, so unemployment will drop. We'll know we will live longer, so will of course have to pay a chunk of our wages into pensions to prepare for that, but everyone will be doing so so wages and the cost of living would eventually settle out to reflect that, in much the same way as wages and the cost of living changed to reflect the movement from a single breadwinner being the 'norm', to both parents working (making staying at home out of reach for many parents.. which is another issue altogether). Those fewer babies will grow into fewer adults. Sure, if life expectancy then continues to expand, the average age will continue to increase, but it should also be pointed out that while we're living longer, this doesn't mean we're spending significantly longer in poor health, so need caring for longer. It seems that we're actually enjoying good health for longer. So it's more that rather than needing care between the age of 75 and 85, you need it from 85 to 95.
It would be tough to begin with while we adapt our lifestyles to the change, but we HAVE to move beyond the exponential growth phase and do what my textbooks said has to happen, and enter the stationary phase. We must be near capacity by now. I just can't agree that 'have more babies' is the answer. The elderly will still need to be cared for whether or not we have babies, but there are also the costs of childcare that needs to be subsidised if lower income parents are to afford to go to work, there is the cost of reducing and preventing child poverty. It just seems like a very short-sighted answer to me. Letting this ride it's course seems like the better solution to the population growth issue. It's that or disease, war and natural disasters (the latter of course, not being in our control, even if you could argue the climate change we caused is increasing the frequency of such events). I know what I'd prefer.
What do you think? Am I seeing this through rose tinted glasses, or should we applauding the reduced birth rate, enjoying our longer, healthier lives, and meeting the challenges of an ageing population as it happens?
Comment