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

The global population pyramid

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: The global population pyramid

#71

Post by chr1 »

logicchains wrote: post #43
Mirioron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big problem we have is social programs. They redistribute wealth from young people right now to old people right now, but they are sold to young people as though they are investing into their future. As the ratio of young people to old people shrinks our social programs end up in more and more trouble. The fiscal gap is a problem in most developed countries.

This program is solvable, with something like Australia's mandatory superannuation or Singapore's Central Provident Fund, where people are forced to save a certain percentage of their income for retirement (and the money is actually saved, they're not just given IOUs for money that will be taken from future young people).

There is no way to actually save money. You perform work for others in exchange for IOUs that you hope to exchange for someone else's work later. If at a later point there are not enough people to do new work, you can't exchange your money(==IOUs) for goods anymore.

Re: The global population pyramid

#72

Post by fifnir »

koonsolo wrote: post #66
fifnir wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population. But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care o…

> I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. It's not really a problem, it survival. Not having kids is not really a problem, but the fact is that you genes will die along with you. Same for culture. Your own culture dying might not be a problem, but it means that your values will die along with it. Having equality between individuals is something to strive for (in my western op…

> you genes will die along with you

I get it, this is why I haven't already had a vasectomy, but your genes are nothing special, just a sample of the alleles in the population.

I'm much more concerned about producing ideas that will outlive me and spreading those. Newton died a virgin yet he profoundly influenced the world.

Similar with cultures, ancient greeks are long gone but their culture shaped the world.

Re: The global population pyramid

#73

Post by dfxm12 »

bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

If we do not address this issue then the world's future is likely poor

Can you show your work with regards to this statement? With respect to supply & demand, with fewer people around, wouldn't wages have to be higher? Land cheaper?

Re: The global population pyramid

#74

Post by ardy42 »

bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

> There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction. This is the next global issue as it will lead to instability in modern rich societies in that they are not sustainable.

It turns out it's not very rational to live, and if you do choose to live, it's not very rational to have kids (and spend a huge chunk of your money on them) when you already have a retirement program to take care of you in your old age.

Re: The global population pyramid

#75

Post by gumby »

iguy wrote: post #50
patentatt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I m…

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are n…

Why do you say that is unfortunate?

Re: The global population pyramid

#76

Post by koonsolo »

threeseed wrote: post #38
koonsolo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

Words fail me reading comments like this. To say that "women" should be "women" and not do "men" things is an attitude that belongs in the dark ages. It's sexist. It's degrading. It treats women like mindless children who can't make their own choices about what work they want to do. Nobody is forcing women to go into STEM. We are encouraging them because unfortunately they have to deal with toxic attitudes all the ti…

I know it comes across as very sexist, but let me try to explain my own problem a bit further.

You could say I have a split view on things. I grew up in the western world with all of it's values. I greatly appreciate individuals being equal, etc. I myself am a father very involved with my kids, I take parental leave, and my wife has a career.

I work in the tech field with the majority of men, but still a lot of great women. Some women I worked with preferred to be in an all male team (this is Europe, not US).

So yes, I greatly value women having the same chances, being able to do anything they want, etc.

But then there is this other side, where I see that our culture is dying. We have certain values, but are not producing enough kids. And now we import people that seem to have an "attitude that belongs in the dark ages", as you called it. But why do we import them? Because they have enough kids.

So maybe I expressed myself wrong, and the real question is: How can our western values survive, when we don't have enough kids to pass these values to?

Re: The global population pyramid

#77

Post by Nasrudith »

fiblye wrote: post #28
bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

>And if you encourage immigration as the solution to shrinkage you end up with rising racism and other reactionary trends to these changing demographics. One of the worst things about using immigration as a solution is that it's merely a bandaid. The worst thing is that people who encourage mass immigration are (likely) unknowingly saying their country is more deserving of the temporary benefits of immigration, and t…

Really I have seen the "unfair to the source country" arguement against immigration several times and it has never failed to look like a bizzare pretext because the true reasons would be unacceptable to say out loud. The source countries already fail to use their potential.

States are not people. They have no rights - rights are for people and they have no right to them.

Re: The global population pyramid

#78

Post by gumby »

bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

There will still be a huge unemployed cohort "moving through the snake" (the diagram in the article is not as clear as the usual "Christmas tree" diagram" that shows a snapshot in time) world wide which can be deployed to equilibrate the labor imbalance. And that doesn't inherently have to lead to racism. For example the US bracero program in the 40s and 50s didn't exacerbate these issues in through the 1970s, nor did the gastarbeiter program in West Germany though the 80s.

Automation and longer extent of healthy life will also mitigate many of these issues.

Japan may be the demographic future but need not be the cultural one. An economic system not based on an age-based pyramid scheme and a move away from zero-sum scarcity mindsets will make addressing these issues much simpler.

Re: The global population pyramid

#79

Post by SolaceQuantum »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #63
patentatt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I m…

> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected? I'm also bothered by your swipe aga…

"I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected?"

I believe the query here is to devalue women in order to support the idea of a nuclear family. Traditional nuclear families (as mother stays home to raise the children) have never been the norm. I'm Chinese and where I am from the is the grandparents that raise the children while both parents work! From what I understand stay-at-home-motherhood has only ever been possible within a single generation in "western" society.

I believe the devaluation comment is associated with the fact our society is capitalist, and one has to purchase basic living and education with money. Income and quality of life have a correlated effect which peters out well above median wage, and many fields that offer the flexibility required for motherhood are less high paying, which often means if one wishes to become a mother they may need to take a less well paying job and thus have a lower quality of life.

Of course, this also means a SAHM who does not bring income is culturally not valued because their work does not directly bring in income (even though attempting to outsource this work would be often equivalent to the salary of a single laborer!). I would argue this is not a problem specifically on the shoulders of women but the shoulders of society as a whole not putting in the framework to support parenting- this would include generous parental leave, flexible work hours, opportunity to WFH, lower medical expenses for children, etc.

Re: The global population pyramid

#80

Post by snarf21 »

diNgUrAndI wrote: post #61

Pensions are not sustainable. Current mandatory CPP contribution in Canada seems like that. It's a promise that government makes that we contribute now which is taken to cover the current senior citizens. What if there isn't enough working force when we get older? How would the government keep the promise?

That's right, pensions are all pyramid schemes. Even when you factor in "stealing" back the money from anyone who dies early. We need a more standard X% towards retirement for people who are working and anything else is a needs based system. If you are retired and poor you get $X each month. If you have lots of money, you get nothing.
Post reply on HN