Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

eco3min.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#111

Post by telesilla »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #90
telesilla wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some countries you can reach retirement age, get a pension and keep working. So you profit more. It's complicated as maybe you've paid to your pension since 18yrs of age and you should get some money back, but many pensions aren't based on those actual savings but on tax payers actively funding that pension. Is double dipping ok then?

That's not what double dipping means. In this case, I presume they're taxed on their continued employment and so they're still paying into the pension they're receiving benefits on? I don't see a problem if that's the case. They contributed to the pension with an agreed payment date and followed the process correctly. I can understand how you feel that it's unfair, but I really don't see a problem unless they stop pa…

The double-dipping unfairness is mostly perceived when there is high unemployment in youth, and we're allowing, via tax rules, for retirement aged persons to have decent returns on their work. They get a living-rate pension AND a job.

Like others note, UBI is a fair solution. Let's have everyone, regardless of age, be able to have a baseline. Then allow extra income form those who enjoy, or value, additional work and income.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#112

Post by amluto »

cyberax wrote: post #36

Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time. That's how we reduce the Earth's population!

Given a choice between:

(a) non-walkable neighborhoods with big houses, big roads and cars everywhere, versus

(b) smaller houses or apartments but fewer cars, walkable neighborhoods, and bikes (and other small mobility devices that small kids can use)

I can tell you where being a kid seems more fun. And I’ve personally been to both sorts of places recently and observed how the kids behave.

Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better.

And yes, I really did recently observe a pretty big family in one of the latter types of places. How does one parent herd a pile of kids from their small (but not that small) apartment to some destination without a giant car? They tell the bigger kids where they’re going and they take the smaller kids, and maybe the bigger kids get their ahead, and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their age.

There’s also nothing new here. Until quite recently in human history, in most societies, kids were quite free to explore on their own or in groups without adults. I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve built so many places that are unsafe for small children and not easily navigable by older children.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#113

Post by sheepolog »

kvuj wrote: post #76
cyberax wrote: post #36

Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time. That's how we reduce the Earth's population!

As the others have said, to me it seems to be the opposite. I went to Switzerland recently and was shocked at how kid friendly it was (very walkable, kid section in trains, parks with fun toys instead of shitty plastic statues). I also saw a whole lot of families and children. As I'm getting older and looking in the coming years at having children, the value of a tight, walkable community has risen exponentially to m…

For what it's worth, Switzerland's fertility rate (1.59 births per woman) is still well below the replacement rate, and has been for decades.

I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#114

Post by pstuart »

baxtr wrote: post #95

Let’s consider this logically: What kind of people will not wanting children likely select for? At least two kinds come to mind: 1) People who love children and are willing to have them regardless of the impact on their financial situation. 2) People living in societies where women (and likely some men) lack a say in whether or not to have children. The first kind could be very good. The second is definitely not some…

If things don't change, those in power in the US will succeed in making the second a reality.

There is a "replacement" crisis but it's being addressed by pearl clutching and those advocating for forced birth.

Having children is expensive all the way around. And women's reproductive rights have enabled them to (rightfully) make their own choices about motherhood.

To state the obvious: children literally are the future of humanity and we need to address the issue accordingly. A lot of it would be via changing the economics of having a child, and the rest would be by making the world a "village to raise a child".

This is all eminently doable. We just need to agree on what that looks like and how to best invest in it.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#115

Post by xnx »

mostertoaster wrote: post #25
pmontra wrote: post #11

So a lot of problems will be solved by 2049 (overpopulation) and probably many others will arise (we never had worldwide decreasing demographics.)

Overpopulation is not a problem. Maybe in a couple countries. But not for the world, and not for the west and definitely not for America. As the population has grown poverty has decreased.

> As the population has grown poverty has decreased.

True, but not obviously a causal relationship.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#116

Post by missedthecue »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #5

> the arithmetic that supports those programs tightens, all else equal We can tax the rich, we're post scarcity, time to take a look at the rest of the world an come up with a better social safety net.

The real problem aging societies face is not a shortage of money but a shortage of people.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#117

Post by missedthecue »

cwoolfe wrote: post #12

This has to slow stock market growth, right? Less young people buying, more older people selling.

Yes. A massive implosion in aggregate consumer demand due to shrinking population will hit real estate, stocks, tax revenue, and therefore the ability to meet debt repayment obligations.

Frustratingly, (and counterintuitively), it won't help housing prices, because shrinking populations retreat to city centers. Spain, Italy, Japan, and Korea are full of $5,000 houses. Meanwhile, Madrid, Rome, Tokyo, and Seoul are more expensive than they've ever been.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#118

Post by [deleted] »

mostertoaster wrote: post #25
pmontra wrote: post #11

So a lot of problems will be solved by 2049 (overpopulation) and probably many others will arise (we never had worldwide decreasing demographics.)

Overpopulation is not a problem. Maybe in a couple countries. But not for the world, and not for the west and definitely not for America. As the population has grown poverty has decreased.

[deleted]

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#119

Post by Buttons840 »

arjie wrote: post #41

I think it’s time to bite the bullet and raise the retirement^W elder benefits eligibility age and peg it to life expectancy at birth minus 15 years or some structure like that. It’s fine that my generation will have to eat the loss - having paid for the past one but not benefiting as much from the coming ones. Some generation has to, and better us than them. As we get better at healthcare and life, we should expect…

> peg it to life expectancy at birth minus 15 years

That would lower the retirement age for me. I was born in the mid-80s.

I know that was just a suggestion. We could go with something like "life expectancy at birth minus 5 years", which would raise the retirement age for me, but we're basically just admitting that retirement isn't a thing anymore if we do that. Hopefully the wealthiest nation on Earth can do better.

I think, whatever we do, we should recognize that the current retired generation holds more wealth than any other generation. If we want more kids in our society, maybe we need to get some of that wealth into the hands of people who can have more kids.

Post reply on HN