6 thoughts on “The Demographic Cliff”

  1. The planet is dying before our eyes, crushed under the burden of massive overpopulation. And this guy thinks it’s a problem because … drum roll … old people don’t buy enough stuff?
    God forbid we actually consider changing the way our entitlements are handled, for example. We have to learn how to thrive in a sustainable fashion or we will indeed all die. (Or we could just go on TV to shill our book, and basically say “let’s get back to the way things were 50 years ago because I understood that better”.)

    Like

  2. Yes. It’s a huge problem.
    Less economic activity leads to fewer employed people. It leads to less state income to support the entitlement system, just when the baby boomers are entering retirement.
    It also leads to less income to support school systems. The war between the generations has already begun. Friends who live in a town with more retirees than families with children report severe cutbacks in public support for the school budget. Retired people vote. They live on fixed incomes. They will not choose to starve.
    The Japanese are further along this road than we. Did you miss the Japanese minister suggesting old people should “hurry up and die” recently?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/22/elderly-hurry-up-die-japanese

    Like

  3. These problems are only encountered if we don’t alter the way we fund these things and make these decisions. One could argue that we should not make investment in education something the local population can simply vote away. One could also argue that, if we can’t pay for all these entitlements with this demographic reality, then we shouldn’t promise to do it!
    If we don’t fix this stuff then much of the economy will simply go underground, in an attempt to avoid paying for entitlements that the younger generations believe are unfair.

    Like

  4. “One could argue that we should not make investment in education something the local population can simply vote away.”
    I’ve heard of over-55 communities that have special exemptions with regard to school funding, as there are no children in the community to go to school (and they like it that way).

    Like

  5. It’s hard to have kids now. The times are out of joint: you get BA, then MA, if lucky you find love, save like crazy to pay student loans and make a down payment. Only then do you feel secure enough to breed – and you are 34, 35. Our number one was in kindergarten, 23 kids in his class. His teacher told me she had ten onlies, ten from families of two, and my guy was one of three from families of three or more.
    Who’s going to be around to wipe our butts, when we go to Geezerville? McMegan did a piece about this, more elegant:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/08/the-coming-retirement-burden.html

    Like

  6. I’ve heard of over-55 communities that have special exemptions with regard to school funding, as there are no children in the community to go to school (and they like it that way).
    Isn’t that known as “Florida?”
    More seriously, I would argue against allowing people to avoid standard tax burdens by setting up such communities. The over-55 people likely want police, fire, medical and professional services, and many other services which depend on an educated populace. Funding schools is an enormous part of town budgets. Allowing exemptions on a community-wide basis creates incentives for people to move to such communities, and reduces the number of citizens supporting local schools.

    Like

Comments are closed.