In Romania the population drop is more linked to people migrating to other European countries for better living condition. Romania's population is about 19M and the diaspora is 4.3M and growing.
Yes, being romanian,I agree. The salaries are not great,and higher education is also not very good. Plus, it is very easy to become a doctor without higher education for example. There is a great joke that is mostly true and goes like this: Ion (or John in English) asked a japanese man why Japan was so devoloped. The japanese said: "We have one smart man for every 9 stupid men, while you have one stupid man for every 9 smart men." Ion says: "So, what?" The japanese says: "In Japan, the smart man rules the stupid men. In Romania, the stupid man rules the smart men."
Our biggest problem is the ineffective goverment bc if the life standards would rise we wouldn't even have this discussion. The fertility rate in Romania is pretty good but the people migrating is what makes the population decline
Housing is just as important and a human right, if not more than healthcare. So why isnt there a National Housing Service that provides each family with a home free of charge? Homebuilders can either be contractors paid by the govt per home built, or be civil servants that build homes. Realtors can be the nurses or receptionists in this analogy. And I don't mean only to those who cannot afford--i mean everyone. We (UK, et al) don't just provide healthcare to the poor, we provide it to all.
@RoastWorthy i dont doubt they're happy with kids, but if youre a 19 year old in college are you REALLY going to risk having kids? I'm not going to have kids until I've graduated college, let alone have my own home.
I'd have children if I could see a good life ahead for them, but unfortunately it looks like a shit show from here to the horizon. Bringing children into such a chaotic world is doing them a favor how? 🤷♂️
@RoastWorthy UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, section 1: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." All UN member states have signed such and former US first lady Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft it.
Population decline in Portugal is happening because of really stupid reasons: - Low wages / low child support - Parents don't have time to take care of their children (I believe this is one of the biggest factors). People *work too much* and when they have children they have almost no time to take care of them, which discourages people from having them. - Emigration, mainly young people emigrating and not having children in Portugal
Just a minor quibble: sometimes you show fertility rate on screen with a percent sign tagged on, although that doesn't make much sense, since it's just a number (the average number of babies per woman).
@Billy O'sullivan an average of 1.5 children for every 100 women? Do you understand what this actually means? Also, you are aware that who I was replying to deleted their comment right?
Average mean, 100 woman having 200 babies = 2 babies per woman... In the paper... but a single woman can have 3 o 4 and others dont... is just a number not the reality. Here in my country i meet a woman who have 5 kids from 3 different men :v... i almost create the 6 lol :v
@@alexanderg1297 Well in this case, it is valid. USA push free trade all over the world with their media and their politic. And their version of free trade: Free trade without regulation.
@@maureenmiaullis6427 My children are grown. I don't tell others how to raise their children but as a therapist and Child Protection officer, I've conducted many parenting courses and worked with individuals as well.
I live in Greece, and the problem here is huge. Immigration to other countries, low wages, and modern way of life effect new families. And most of the 2010+ families have only one child
And another big problem in Greece is that no one wants to remain in the villages. Every young person wants to move to Athens or Thessaloniki. Greece probably doesn't grow enough food to feed itself.
There is a plan for that, a tax “per machine”. Which would probably end up just being a tax on equivalent human output per hour. Per machine would obviously be unworkable, they are not standardised. So it would be a nightmare to calculate.
if the government put an end to tax avoidance there would be plenty for a UBI system to enable exactly this. But any politician who tried that would be assassinated much like the journalist who uncovered the panama papers.
I'm an African and l think that people should consider their financial situation and the future prospects of the kids before having them because apparently they haven't been doing that, you see a lot of people who don't have any stable income having kids just because they feel that that is what they should be doing and then they set these kids up for failure, knowing full well that the country they live in has nothing to offer these kids in terms of economic prospects or a decent life.
People often forget that, not only does the working class have to support the old non working class, but they also have to support the upcoming working class, kids and students. However you look at it, for working class its always difficult.
@@sol90981 no. Back in the days the 1 child policy didn’t apply to ethnic monitories because of ‘cultural religious differences’ blah blah. The autonomous regions had the power to choose to adopt or not. Some basically adopted it but only applied to Han Chinese living in their regions. The enforcement was arbitrary and very loose in the beginning, then strengthened in late 80s and 90s and loosened again after 2000s. After 2000s the consequences of having more than 1 baby is purely financial and that coincided with China’s explosive economic growth. It was basically a one-time tax to have more babies. people whose first child has disabilities are allowed to have more children. There were also some other exceptions
I’m Dutch. Our population went from 3 million to 17 million in just a century. We are very densely populated. It would be a blessing if we go back to 10 or 12 million. Slowly.
Even if they do, all they are really doing is potentially increasing their share of the work output of the people who are working during the years when the retiree is retired. Not that I'm in the natalist camp, the productive output of modern technology combined with the extra space and greater bargaining power for labor available from a lower working population, should make for a better future than present. So long as the politics don't get too aristocratic and dystopian.
There is a huge problem of talking about this only in terms of the problems it causes. It falls out of line with our ideas about permanent economic growth, and certainly presents challenges. But global populations are already unsustainably high. Part of solving climate change is, frankly, just having less people. The challenges of low fertility are nothing compared to the challenges of biosphere collapse.
The thing is, people are already hate the current state of the economy to the point where you have conspiracy theories that climate action is just an excuse to lover living standards. A lot of people will not accept another hit to their already precarious monetary situation. The ironic thing is that climate friendly policy is most likely a good thing for the economy but good luck explaining it to a 40 something high school dropout who sees "everything is expensive now! I have to work 12 sifts to keep my car fuelled!" It's an easy mindset to fall into when you hate the economy...
When it takes until your mid 30s in so much countries to be able to live comfortably and stabilize yourself economically, why would anyone have kids? As more evidence it is an economic qnd not cultural issue (e.g. hesitance to have kids for reasons other than economic stability) just look at top flight footballers who are econimcally stable and having kids in their 20s
Or you live on an "unsafe" 'hood and think "No way I'm subjecting a child to this Hell when I can't leave myself". And then, if you do leave, you get to the case you describe above. If lucky, by which point you'll just say "Not Worth It Anymore".
Make it so people can marry and have a good job in the 20's and there will be more children. Many women wait to 30's or 40's to settle down, way to late to find a life partner.
@@MasterGhostf What about the men? Are men in their 20's also willing to settle down? It's not just the woman's fault, we can't just pick any man and get him to marry.
@@sunnysunshine8897 of course. Many guys want to settle down, but with college it's hard. And I don't blame women for waiting after college. Which is roughly 22-24. Same with men..we all have to improve and make ourselves the best we can be and keep the effort when were in a relationship. Same goes for men as well as women. To me there is a large societal issue that isn't being talked about but will be a major issue in a few decades.
Another potential problem with education is how long it takes. Typically at least a university degree is something that is sought after, meaning that you will not be out of uni until ~23-24 years old at best. As people age having children becomes more difficult. I know we are in this boat, because we are in our 30ies and only now are attempting at our first child due to making sure we are stable.
Fertility doesn't really decline all that much in your 30's, a 25 year old has a 87% chance to get pregnant in a year of trying, a 37 year old has about 84% chance. And most of the drop is due to stuff like obesity and genetic conditions. So if you stay healthy and don't have underlying conditions, there is no need to worry.
@@hamstsorkxxor while true it does limit the amount of time you have to have more kids. We are in a similar situation, we are discussing kids as we want 3 but starting at age 35 or so means that my gf would need to go really fast to get there
Yeah, I was able to finish my masters at a university at 29. It was too long, bachelor degree at 24 would´ve sufficed... To this day I´m primarily working and making money to have any chance of starting a family of my own. Not enough money means no woman and no kids. So I won´t probably raise the reproduction number, just drag it down. If I´m a parent, then only an old one :/
I am a Greek .Greece's population is declining rapidly .When I was a child ,it was 11 million .Now it goes to 10 . In the contrary UK' s population was 61 million when I came ,fifteen years ago and now is 68 .It looks to me that people go wherever there are opportunities .
The other solution is to pay working people way more, it's hard to support oneself with the salaries that you sometimes have to accept let alone a family
If women stop working and become stay at home mothers again, then the wages will double (just like they were before feminism). It's just basic supply and demand. As a bonus, that also makes life easier for pregnant women (since they don't need to work), and the mothers can homeschool their children (easing the burden on the public school system).
@@SchemingGoldberg no, they won't double. In reality the ownership class will always find a way to keep wages low. In 19th century with "traditional gender roles" wages were barely enough to survive. And stop telling half of population what to do based on group they happen to be born into. "Before the feminism" lol when was it? In 50s-60s? You mean when union membership was much higher and taxes on the rich were higher, and USA experienced rapid growth due to being only developed country not destroyed by WW2, and Europe due to aid from USA and restoration of economy from war destruction? But, surely, wages were higher only cause women rarely worked, aha
@@SchemingGoldberg Wages won't double if the size of the available labor force halves! Instead, businesses which can't find workers will close and the economy will shrink. Bear in mind that if women left the workforce, the remaining male workers wouldn't suddenly become twice as productive to compensate! Consequently, total productivity will halve and economic growth will decrease. As the same time, household incomes will also decrease by whatever percentage was being earned by the woman, leaving households with less disposable income. You've also overlooked that today there are more single women aged 20-30 and more couples without children aged 30-40. Removing these women from the workforce would result in a loss of skilled labor for no gain.
The only solution is to give women less rights like arranged marriages. Eastern Euros have low birth rate but the all the gypsy in those countries have high birth rate because of arranged marriages at a young age
Italy's population decline and Japan's population decline are a very similar phenomenon in the way that it's happening and why. It's fascinating to me as an italian and as someone fascinated by Japan. The more i get interested the more things in common i find.
even if we cant choose Europe communism is worse if i ever go to china ill just try to make money as fast as i can and then go home and you cant make all that much money in china so no one is stupid enough to immigrate there
@@abdullahshabaneh8648 to be Chinese,and single-party. Fascist Germany was one party, definitely not communist. (yes I know that China is not fascist, just an example)
Portugal has introduced incentives like the None Habitual Residency scheme however that only really attracted retiree's Their other incentive was the Golden Visa aimed at rich foreigners who had to spend over 300,000 euros on property and or start a business and employ ten people. Both schemes registered both success and failure . Interestingly in the last ten yrs young people have found Portugal and are moving here ,mainly as digital nomads ,or off grid families. The reason for that seems to be mainly the climate ,The space , The cheaper properties .The excellent conditions of health care ,general services etc..They have been surprised to find that Portugal is not a third world country.It's well rung and actually has higher standards than many so called 1st world countries .Language can be deemed a problem .In the south however English is spoken everywhere .English is the business, scientific and medical language So not such a problem in those areas.It's good and obviously advantageous in the long run to learn the language though .
Yea the GTA is insane. Even places like London, Cambridge, Milton, Kitchener, are going through the roof. I guess getting out of urbanized places in Ontario, Quebec, & B.C. are the only short term solutions. But the problem is the government is too dependent on property taxes to ever fix the housing crisis. The higher the value of the house the larger amount they can get via annual property taxes. If there was real economic growth the government wouldn't be dependent on extracting revenue from tax slaves (a.k.a. "citizens") primary place of shelter. Then again Canada has been going up and down between 1971 to 2001. Slowly & steadily going down between 2001 to 2011. And since 2011 the negative rate has been increasing year over year. I suspect after this Corona BS 2021 to 2031 is going to be alot worse than 2001-2011. Hopefully I'm proven wrong; and the bureaucrats stop abusing their tax slaves and actually have a long term prosperous plan. If not then I suspect the immigration rate will continue to slow down, along with the fertility rate, and more people will try for greener pastures. We this already happening the beginning of the brain & labour drain from the West to the East & South. We are seeing a slow and steady increase of Western Europeans & North Americans moving to China, India, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Philippines, Turkey, Azerbaijan, & there were 3 African countries that I can't remember at the moment. I hope I'm proven wrong b/c Canada has great potential to be a great power of the 21st Century like the countries on the come up besides China & Russia; we have Iran, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, & India. If countries like Canada, Argentina, Chile, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Hungary, UAE, Rwanda, & Pakistan can get their acts together they possibly have a bright future ahead of them. Also the biggest problem for Canada is going to be as the USA continues to deteriorate we should be expecting climate refugees from the USA by the tens of millions. If not we may see a resurgence of manifest destiny if the worst comes to pass. Hopefully when the time comes the USA balkanizes peacefully instead of starting WW3/4 and or trying to invade Canada for its resources. Also lastly we need to secure our portion of the Artic. Especially concerning the northwest passage. We will need to work with Denmark/Greenland/Iceland on this one though. With their portion of the Artic circle & northwest passage Just like the Russians have secured their northeast passage. Peace.
@@JKTProductionzIncNCo China has a negative net migration and Hong Kong will as well once the Chinese gov't is done with the restructuring. Western Europeans and North Americans on a mass scale will not be leaving to go to any of those countries you listed. All of those countries have an unpredictable future especially with climate change coming. The only desirable countries to move to will be Canada, the U.S (mainly the northern states), and Russia. China will not allow immigration and very few people would want to go there anyways. The U.S will never invade Canada "for its resources". Our country is its biggest customer, our businesses are so integrated with each other it literally would not be feasible. If the U.S invaded Canada half of the corporations on the S&P500 would collapse.
There are 8 billion too many people on the planet - if the population declines naturally over time, more space and quality of life for everyone and maybe even fill employment instead of wage slavery…. I don’t think this is bad, I believe it’s good and should be supported.
@@elodin857 I don't see how reproducing habits of the wealthy change that fact, I get that you're saying that "even people with that can easily afford a house still don't have many children." But that's unrelated to my problem right now.
@@meneither3834 I know I know, it is unrelated to your problem in a way. I'm just pointing out that people have managed to have kids in the worse conditions throughout history and we can't even get to do it in the easiest time to have them.
The world does not need more people. We need a new economic plan that works for less people. Work smarter and live smarter, after all we are suppose to be the smartest animals on the planet, except it seems economists and people that listen to their mantra.
@We're living in a paradox. We humans got to this point and we get more and more. If we are as much as 50 oder 100 years aho that wouldnt be that bad. And its not only about the amount of people, if everyone gets educated to a high level the chance if someone creating something new is higher than a society that is 10 or more times bigger but only gives a few people the high education
Yes indeed. Our whole economic system and civilization need a major restructuring and a new approach to what is really important in life. Unfortunately I think the necessary changes won't happen. Brace yourselves and prepare for the global economic crash.
You advocate for a new economic plan that works for fewer people, the GOP has the same plan. Humans are not the smartest animal on the planet. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with destroying it.
@@muysli.y1855 not quite. At 2100 it will be already declining. From what i have read a few months ago the "highest" point of population will be around 2070. And around 2100 we will already be at under 9 billion again
no just in developed countries while it is exploding in poor countries like Africa and middle east. even in my country Afghanistan, despite war and poverty, it is so much increasing. we really dont know what to do with our people
@@masihullahhasanyar1084 What is your problem? Your pple dead in war of 20 years and they need to recover it. So I don’t get why you need declining population or i misunderstood y?
@@halalpolice23 well. Having a young generation is a blessing if the economy works well and there are enough jobs, else it will increase the crime rate and will provide basis for their recruitment in terrorist groups. This is exactly what we are seeing now. Overpopulation while lack of investment
People don’t have time or money to have children because we’re all busy working to keep the millionaires and billionaires in private jets, houses and of course the huge hoarded bank accounts. When I was young, my parents had about the same as I had on a fairly reasonable single salary. Today i would get way less and have to work way more hours. We’re being squeezed.
@@digitalmohsin no…the reason is we’re being squeezed. Asking folks to only survive so they can procreate is piss poor. Folks want to live, and they want their children to be able to live and live nicely, not just survive. If you can’t make a better world for your kids, why have them?
@@bdott1538 Not really, there are people being born in Africa and Asia that are living without 90% of the stuff we take for granted in USA. I can say this as I grew up in one such country where there was no electricity for 10 hrs per day. My car didn't have airbags, I didn't have Alexa, smart bulbs, fancy mattresses, TVs, smart watches, instantpot, entertainment subscriptions still I managed to come to US and still doing better than most people here. The point is our mentality is we gotta have it cuz he/she has it. We consume beyond our means. It's not hard to have two kids we have been having kids for centuries and never faced such shitty time as today.
@@digitalmohsin I have only a few airbags in my car since I only buy used. Well some would call me old fashioned and over the hill but I pride myself on wasting much less than others and not being with people just because of their money or material possessions
@@digitalmohsin really? This thinking is stupid you know? Buy s...t we don't need. Dude have you ever tried living as a monk or a farmer? Do you know how hard firstly mentally this work is? People buy as you called s...t they don't need, cuz they want to feel life, what it is like to live luxurious life. Our parents sold their souls to earn money. Money is the thing which really brings you happiness, i know it sounds harsh, but it is a reality. People constantly look tvs read journals, they see how freakingly great the life of rich people is. But not all of us are talented, but we all want the same thing, so this is why people are dying out
For someone from Pakistan where population has exponentially exploded in the last two decades, this all seems surreal. Before I lived overseas, my gf from a village in Pakistan had 9 brothers and sisters. Nine! And that wasn’t a particularly exceptional number for the villages. It’s not so much religion as it is the communal way of life.
I wonder if the expansion of remote work will help reverse population declines. If people can work from home away from cities, expensive land will be less of an issue.
The reason of dropping rate in Latvia is that there is almost no future, salary here is low(it's high only for those "smartheads" in the government.) The prices in store keep getting more and more expensive, a lot of people now can't even afford their favourite meals or products, because they keep getting more expensive, and a lot of people who work in a minimum wage works, need to count their last euros to survive until next wage. Also utility prices and taxes are getting 2 and even 4 times more expensive. Also a lot of professions are no use in Latvia, and also another reason is weather and geographical condition, weather here is pretty wet and in winter it's cold because of wetness and also in summer it's too hot because of wet air. And also a lot of people emigrate to other countries with better life quality, for example, Scandinavia, Canada, USA, western Europe etc. Our language is also slowly shrinking, because people who live abroad start forgetting it and don't teach it to their children's and also we have a lot of Russian people who don't learn Latvian language(mostly old ones). And also English is moderately overtaking Latvian language in Latvia. And also Latvia is one of those countries that will be under water if water level keeps growing.
@@pengy897 It happens all the time lately. Women don't even think about having kids because for some reason in our culture it's seen as just a deadweight and then when they try to at 30 1/3rd already can't.
@@elodin857 "For some reason in our culture it's seen as just a deadweight" Do you have any other words that describe having to deal with kids? At the same time they're going through their early career and getting set up in life, women need to make a choice: Career on hold for kids or kids on hold for career? Kids are immensely expensive, especially for the first decade when you need childcare if you don't have a parent at home all the time. That's ignoring the huge chunks of time off work that you need to factor in for maternity leave. It's also ignoring the fact that I'm pretty certain the time pregnant isn't a fun time for the mother. I'll probably never understand why people have kids in the first place. It all seems like no upside and all downside to me.
@@deathbower prime example of what I said. Why the hell is a carreer preferable than having your own children? Of course it's hard, but it's the most rewarding thing in most people's lives. A job is what you do to get money.
As a millennial born in Canada, I'd love to have some children but aside from the general difficulty of just finding someone who actually shares my values and the difficulties with refusing not sacrificing a personal life for a career it doesn't really matter how much I *want* children haven't them simply isn't a possibility. (either I get a good paying job and sacrifice more of my personal life or I find a woman who wants to work but generally that also means not having children because it will hurt their career prospects) It's the kobayashi maru of having children.
yup the cost of living is going through the roof its getting ruff and all the things happening in canada are just going to continue to make life more expensive. its almost better for you to go gay and have a buddy than to get a woman pregnant and have all that expense that you cant afford.
Go full Kirk and cheat. They say that having a great life is being able to pay for things you don't need (with money you don't have) ; and having time to kill with distractions that will make you feel empty. Don't fall for that : having a great life is living for your family. Find a woman who thinks likewise and is thus ready to forego her carreer and to have children before she turns 30. Your kids will be raised with exactly what is good for them : few things & dedicated parents. Your wife won't have the stress of combining family life and the pursuit of a carreer - and she definitely can start a full-time job at 40 once the last kid reaches high-school. You can have your can *then* eat it, you see. You will have the most meaningful life a man can hope for. Having a family depend on you is the last adventure. Just don't get afraid of not being secure - because there is no such thing in real life.
The reason behind all this is capitalism. We see everything in terms of finance and children are simply a bad investment - they are incredibly expensive and they don't give you any bonuses. In our economic system it simply makes more financial sense to be single and childless
Hey I was pregnant with my first and the physio I needed to see because pregnancy related pain startled me by saying people not having children were so very very selfish. I was shocked. Just as shocked when folks say people having children is selfish.
@@theepiccommenter7833 countries with 1B populations already have their fertility rates falling below replacement value. Children are a joy but as S Ryan put it "are simply a bad investment" Society expects to have it's cake and eat it too. It wanted women to strenghthen the economy but does not realise how critical that traditional"work' women used to do was. Mothers are unpaid labourers for the investment of the future economy. all they get is a crumby card and bunch of flowers once a year. Could you imagine companies/businesses being expected to make infrastructure for society without any financial input? oh the sooks they would give to the government. To be honest both men and women need to spend time together after the birth of their baby to strengthen each other and their family unit promote breastfeeding and bonding - basically serving their new mini over lord. And society just needs to realise that 's the cost .... the dinks and the sinks need to start taking part in the care economy too. you can't see yourself as just a worker but also a carer too. (I am using hetronomitive/intact family terms but rushing off and easier to just get the idea out using old language - just a comment on a youtube page - but of course my terms and languages needs to promote inclusivity and families of allsorts.) Typically leadership of most countries of the west are rich boys from single sex schools - they don't get real world people. We here in Australia have had a falling fertility rate for 40 years. 40 years no one has done anything. So people with uteruses have this super power to take this tiny contribution and make another human being. And misogynistic society says yep you get nothing for all that work. Many women want to have babies but having a career gives you respect and a financial future .... babies not so much.
@@theepiccommenter7833 oh and sorry for my ranty reply .... lol... unsuspectedly comes out .... I used to earn big money now nothing as a mum and I have never worked as hard in my whole life. I have chosen poverty but I can see how others would make different choices. To casually apply a blanket people having children as selfish is shocking. the choice to have children is personal and people should be supported to have children if that's what they want to do. Society gets great benefit from having children .... it's got to stop thinking it's free.
Why does this discussion focus exclusively on the problems. Population decline is not a disaster. It creates problems (as discussed in this video) and benefits (not mentioned). These include: reduced impact on the environment due to reduced consumption, fewer vehicles, less energy use, less mining, less travel, less agriculture etc etc etc. It also reduces the need for houses, schools, workplaces etc etc.
You are right. But the politicians are shit-scared because they keep winning elections by promising generous pensions to a certain cohort that is very large and influential; those pensions can only be maintained by an ever-growing population. So they have to frame it as the one big issue.
Too many people on this planet anyway. People are tired of struggling only to be taxed into Oblivion. Retirement is another issue. People are just trying to live and enjoy life without the corporations using us like a disposable Duracell battery.
Wealth inequality absolutely exist in Africa but they still have many kids for the purpose of trying to get their family to become wealthier since kids are easily affordable and will provide the family with wealth
Maybe, just maybe if there were more policies against house hoarding and they increased the supply in construction to lower housing prices, more young people would be willing to buy a house and start a family. But as usual greed has its long term price.
Good idea. Who's going to build and upkeep these machines? A small number of people in comparison to the number of people that used to do said jobs. And those people are being paid less than the cumulative jobs that the machines they are building and working on are replacing. So less money into the system and cheaper costs means that companies will sell their prices for cheaper, right? Yes! But not enough to where their bottom line is "hurt" when they could also sell at the same price for a long time and slowly decrease prices and make more money, fluffing those at the top who are more likely to not be spending all that they make and hold onto it for longer since they already have all that they need, hence less money in the system being circulated. Less money in the system=lower prices, right? Not necessarily. Especially for things that are necessities like housing and food staples, they'd all decrease only a little in order to be competitive, bit still nowhere near as low enough for the ratio of money our there as they are necessities. Which also means less money in people's pockets for extra things that aren't ass needed in life, but spending money in various areas in necessary for the economy. We'd need a whole overturn on how money and society functions as well as how companies are ran if we are going to properly implement robots as the main workforce of the future, but that's money that govs don't want to spend. Plus, your work fewer hours is only possible if we are paid the same for those fewer hours as the original set of hours, but with how minimum wage is like and how companies treat employees, we know how that works out. Love your optimism though! But cold realism is too fun to not shoot it down with.
@@LemonyFresh2000 well yes they will need to at least stabilize the birth rates. I think the idea the OP was getting at is that with innovation and some proper planning automation can make a working person far more productive. Hypothetically to the point where a young working person can support multiple retired old people
There's only two good ways to solve low TFRS. 1. WORLD WAR WORLD WAR WORLD WAR WORLD WAR 2. Encouraging people of all genders to stay at home and raise children, not just women. If women can be in the work force nowadays, men also can take traditional women roles and raise children on their own.
Look at the bright side : 1. Reduced demand for variety of resources, such as oil, water, etc. Which are getting increasingly hard to get. 2. Reduced food demand, less stress on agriculture and animal farming, reduction in overfishing. 3. Reduced pollution, and CO2 emissions 4. Less people to fight for the same jobs 5. Easier management of public infrastructure 6. Lower demand of energy 7. Reduction in deforestation as a consequence of reduced demand of wood, farmland etc. 8. Potential Increase in wages due to reduced labour pool.
Thank you so much for all your work and research. I am deeply touched that you even included us from Québec as an example for the third variable for population decline (religion) in a society. As well as the way you objectively address all topics as best you can and giving us insight from all angles as much as possible. Merci beaucoup, bonne journée!! 👍🏻⚜️👌🏻💙🤍💪🏻
In Canada, we have a massive housing crisis. It's extremely expensive in Toronto and Vancouver. This is because most of the 400000/year migrations want these cities. Another factor is that the Millennium population, which is the biggest population demographic are all trying to get in the market too.
Canadian gov really should be building social housing to go WITH the proportionally large immigration to population ratio. Any country I've lived in, immigrants will cluster in places other people from their nation came from. They create supportive communities to help them survive and navigate systems like: What is a SIN card? What is a tax return and I how do I fill it out? It's unrealistic to expect the bulk of immigrants to go anywhere but major cities. Even if you look at Roman and Greek times, immigrants arrive in cities.
Then shut down the flood gates and let the Canadians sort things out. With a declining population, the cost of housing decreases and this may be all that middle class canadians need to reproduce once again. Now, the retirement funds need to be re arranged into a construct that isn't a pyramid scheme....
@@runningfromabear8354 and those immigrants that cluster together in Canada are generally racist towards minority ethnicities in those areas. especially in canada
@@amazingamx1255 Pardon if I might sound insulting or condescending it's not my intention, why don't you change your name and religion to "fit in" and not be discriminated against. Many european migrants in the 20th century anglicized their last names to pass as anglo saxon that way they wouldn't be looked down on by the upper class. My ancestors for example, changed their names and converted to the dominant religion in the region.
Countries will allow immigration. The immigrants will have to work for lesser pay lowering the pay of locals who will then have even lesser children. As the immigrants are educated, they will have lower birth rates as well and the cycle continues.
The decline of birth rates is a natural consequence from increasing productivity and lifestyle shift. I don't think it's reasonable to maintain the birth rates decades ago or even a century ago. That's just not how a society develops. However, I do agree that birth rates in some countries are dropping beyond this. What gov policies should focus upon is not to stimulate having kids by monetary means, but to relieve the burden off the shoulder of women who postpone or give up pregnancy due to financial/time problems.
@@jessesinclair3861 Why are you the way that you are? Their purpose is equal rights and educating dumbasses such as yourself that men are also VERY capable of giving a hand raising their own children. Besides, most households nowadays require much higher funding 1 person just wouldn't be able to sustain. This has nothing to do with feminism and especially nothing to do with LGBT.
@@jessesinclair3861 I don't know if not having kids young and having less accidental kids is pretending to be men. wouldn't having kids if you don't want them be wasting your lives
@@jessesinclair3861 Well, that largely depends where you live, but workplace discrimination and strict abortion laws( not letting the women have a say in the matter) just to name but a few serious ones that still exist even in western countries. But fuck that, who cares? That's not my point, so don't even try going there. My point is your belief that these ideologies/organizations try "reducing white people's birth rates". How retarded is that? Just because you want a TOOL to raise your kids and keep quiet doesn't mean others want that too. Now do the world a favor and hire a nanny for your kids if you think that burden should fall under 1 person. "Entirely planned strategy" lmao.
@@jessesinclair3861 Why do you keep diverting the subject? I have no interest in discussing human/women's rights with you and it wasn't mentioned in order to "generate an emotional response", it's literally feminism's and LGBT's sole purpose. What interests(or atleast used to) me is: -What gives you the notion women aren't being exposed to both options. - Why you're so obsessed with their "fulfilment in life" only being a housewife, especially when it's possible doing both. - And why, oh why, do you actually think it affects world population in such a manner that's even worth mentioning? Seems like you're just forcfully shoving your agenda on unrelated subjects to piss people off. Congrats, you succeeded.
Declining populations should not be framed as a problem but as a challenge. Who is to say that older people will be unproductive. Policies should be focused on creating opportunities to keep older people in the workforce.
Is this a 50-cent worker? Who knows. Anyway, the problem is health. As the body ages, blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, a weakened immune system, loss of muscle mass, falling ATP availability, and _much_ more make the stress, physical demands, and pathogens of the workplace intolerable.
@@jonmichaelgalindo I take your point that old people suffer from more ailments but many are quite able to contribute effectively. The point is that business will need to accommodate and use these workers as the population ages.
The only people who benefit in the long run from growing populations are rich capital owners. Smaller population = cheaper housing and more of everything to go around. The dependency bump will only be an issue for a few decades until settling into a lower equilibrium (unless life expectancy rises).
It's aLL pArT oF tHe pLaN oF tHe pEdOsAtAnIsT eLiTeS oF gEoRgE SoRoS, tHeY wAnT aN eThNiC cLeAnSiNg oF tHe wEsTeRn wOrLd WiTh tHe GreAT RePLaCeMeNT In all seriousness, that's quite a concerning issue, and you can't just force people to have children.
No, but we should encourage it as a society, but we don't anymore. Plus it is a frightening prospect of putting children into the world, when you know that AI singularity is right around the corner. Can you even say that you have a responibility to bring children into the world to further civilization, when we don't even know if it will be there when they grow up? It is a hard sell in this day and age...
@@Joe-vm6ds Yeah, tell me about it, somehow nobody outside Europe sees the EU as an economic union and everyone refers to us as a COUNTRY which is so stupid as each country in Europe has it's own language, tradition, history etc, that means each country in the EU has its own identity, language and culture. Nobody refers to himself as European.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 i'm sorry to say but many people call themselves European, including myself. You can have your own language and culture, but values in most of the European country are the same.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 That is true, however the EU has become a lot more than just an "economic union", they've pushed for common EU laws, common EU military, common EU culture, common EU morality, etc.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 There definitely are ways in which the EU acts in a way traditionally associated with single countries though. The common market is a very good example of that; it's actually more accurate to compare the EU as a whole with other countries than to do the comparison with individual member states, as that way you're effectively slicing a single economy into relatively arbitrary pieces.
Argentina grows alot in population everytime there's wars in europe because many people from there chose to go far away from problem but at the same time to a place that looks european.
I’m Welsh. My paternal grandmother had 9 children in 14 years, 1918-1932 (the last one died last week). My parents had 3 children 1945-1948 (the second one died shortly after birth), and me ten years later. Of the 3 people in my generation, only 1 had children - 3 between 1972 and 1986. Of the 3 people in the next generation, only 1 has had children - 3 between 2007 and 2011. So my family has been keeping a constant number for 3 generations now!
Here in the Philippines, we have a fertility rate of about 2.5. Yeah, not a problem considering our country has one of the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies. We have a very large diaspora in the western world, especially in both the US and Canada thanks to very high emigration rates in our country. So our problem is more of a how-to stop emigration type of thing and curbing teenage pregnancies.
Filipino Culture also encouraged people to have atleast 3 child. And most Filipino's living abroad tends to come back to Philippines after their contract ends. So for me Philippines will not face a population decline problem even in 2100.
If your priority is no longer some form of continuation, then all is well. Once Italian peninsula people ruled the known world, now it has soft-decided to go quietly into the night. One has to question the priority that replaced all that 'going forth and multiplying/increasing'.
The job market and housing issue is probably the biggest contributor. I am single and have above average salary. Not a lot. But at least I can have savings. But still with my savings and salary, affording a house is hard. Providing for a family is hard if my partner is not working as well. Solution? Probably allow remote work so people can have loweriving cost so they can afford children.
Curious. With increased automation will the impact of a declining birth rate be mitigated? I can see a circumstance where automation leads to higher unemployment and therefore a need for some form of UBI. In such a circumstance taxing workers to fund welfare would be counterproductive, instead it would presumably be funded by corporation or wealth taxes.
Exactly. Actually paying people so they can afford they're basic needs is a good way to encourage people to have kids. Most people won't have them because of financial insecurity. Especially young people who can't even afford their own homes.
@@theblackswordsman9951 this seems to conform with the sentiments in the chat. Honestly, I am not yet convinced of the case for a UBI (as opposed to a wealth tax and better funding for welfare) but can see why it gaining traction and could be persuaded to support this type of policy.
@@theblackswordsman9951 I don't see it working though. With a basic income I'd imagine the costs would just increase until there is financial insecurity again. Like in the netherlands there is "huur subsidie" which is basically money from the government to help pay the rent if you rent below a certain price and you don't earn too much money; however the rents have steadily increased so almost every housing option is now at the top of that subsidy cut off price. As a result the huur subsidie keeps rising slightly every year but so do the rents 😅 so in the end the money you keep in your pockets is roughly the same no matter how much money daddy goverment gives.
Um... maybe because this doesn't apply to third world cesspools in Africa, much of the Middle East, and certain countries from East and South Asia as well. Never thought for a second that these people who's culture is clearly, for the most part, incompatible with ours, will simply be encouraged to migrate here and essentially make up the numbers for declining Western fertility rates, did you? And eventually when they've outnumbered the parent culture in the Western country they've migrated to, will vote in numbers to change the fabric of it. You hipster trendies with your save-the-planet-by-not-having-anymore-kids vibes, will be thrown out the window. But it likely won't happen in your lifetime so you need not worry with future generations who want to be like you, who won't inherit the same libertarian freedoms that you were entitled to, because you let other more dominating cultures in to take over. So why would you care?
@@tentringer4065 Sweden now has one of the highest rates of sexual assault cases in the world. Of course, the left-wing cucked media will try and spin it and turn it all into a "toxic masculinity" issue and conveniently ignore race to push their own agenda. But anyone without rocks in their head can easily join the dots. That's what a country gets for being "tolerant" and welcoming to foreign illegals from the third world. Enjoy multicultural "enrichment".
@@eddielong8663 Sweden changed the legal definition of rape in 2018 to sex without consent. Unlike in many countries, prosecutors do not have to prove the use or threat of violence or coercion. So comparisons with other nations are not like with like. As for race, it is distinct from culture and background.
@@tentringer4065 Sex without consent. Right... so that essentially falls into the category of sexual assault. Same thing really. Breaking news, that one. I don't know what they're trying to prove to be honest. Same with you for bringing it up. Just seems like a convenient way to detract from the case in point. Sweden's rape statistics were on the rise long before 2018. Nothing can deter the fact that the country's statistics concerning any form of sexual assault, have mysteriously gone up and up with the rise of multiculturalism and feminism starting last century. The rise of promiscuity among women, the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, the rise of divorce, the fall of traditional marriage, the rise of gay marriage, the rise of single motherhood. It all correlates together. I understand it goes against the cute little politically correct mainstream narrative, and you can try and counter with as many useless platitudes as you want, but you're not convincing for a second.
Well, as mentioned in the video, you need enough children to support the retired population sufficiently. And if everyone subscribes to your altitude, that will become a real problem as there will be a lack of working age individuals. Going out on a limb here (and sorry if I get this wrong), you might see the people around you in a negative light, with little hope of good coming from them. So why bring children into this world? The problem with this line of reasoning is, that the population of people you consider awful will continue to rise, while individuals like you, who seem to wish for more compassion and kindness, will stagnate or shrink if they all refuse to have children. That way it would only become worse with each generation. The soultion in my eyes is to have 2-3 children and raise them to be compassionate and productive members of society. That way you can try to ensure that future generations don't have to take your gloom outlook on humanity.
@@somedude1502 You can claim the 'positivity' card all you want, I don't lie, most people are like this, and I am not bringing new children into the world to be abused, that being said I aim to focus on the children who already exist and to help teach them integrity and empathy, so I am not completely giving up.
@@somedude1502 So you see that the world is a neverending battlefield between decent and shit people and you still decide to continue this war by bringing your children into this like little soldiers? And you naively assume that they will grow up to be what their parents want them to be? No, I will fight my own fights.
The problem is not the population increase, the problem is the unequal distribution of whealth. Fewer than 1000 people own over 50% of the world's wealth. Some countries are willing to go to war with other nations to steal their resources ( oil , gas, minerals) ,some countries control the issuance of currency of entire nations. Some are just greedy businessman who take markets away from mon and pap shops. The military budget of USA, CHINA and Russia can eliminate poverty on the planet. Our problem is not population, the problem is distribution of wealth. In the US $25.000 a year can provide a decent life in a rural area. In California, it cost anywhere between $25.000 to $50.000 a year to house a prisoner. NASA budget alone can solve the homelessness issue in America
I'd love to have a big family myself, problem is cost of living and cost of having children, the instability of marriage, and even the stability of dating, we mostly spend our 20s dating , once you're on your thirties the fertility also drops . There was a significant unpredicted drop of fertility during the pandemic , and I think the historical trend shows us that once you enter a particular trend, there's no going up . I've read some papers that basically predict a population of about 12 billion people by 2100 with a following downward trend for the whole world, without any indicator of it ever going up .
Declining population is a good thing. We dont need more ppl! Try to coorperate with the ~8billion we already are. Less ppl are so beneficial to our world-society!
that is not true...u r just looking at the surface of the problem. lower population is good if it is lowered equally from each age group but if its lowered from working population then ur retirement money and all the benefits of senior citizens shall diminish.
Nigeria had 40 years ago 100 Millionen people, now 200 and at the end of the century it is predicted that they'll have 800 Million residents! No decline. It's just mostly in the northern hemisphere
The shrinking has the same effects on all countries, but the reason differs massively. Most of the countries you listed in the beginning loose young population due to emmigration. Some of the long known 'old' countries shrink because of lack of babies. The only reason why Germany is now growing is because of immigration, seriously.
Considering much of the planet’s environmental problems stem from overpopulation having less people wouldn’t be a bad thing. Secondly, with increased automation there is going to be less jobs for less skilled people. BI might become a necessity, and having less people would make it easier to afford. And if population shrinkage is a problem then mass immigration is not an ideal solution.
Reasons some of those countries have low fertility rates: 1. Business > Family 2. Money can buy happiness (if said person is not interested in having any children) 3. "You can't give someone the feeling of despair if they don't even exist in the first place"
Money cant buy happiness. Just look at Japan. One of the most orderly countries out there with one of the largest median incomes and inequality adjusted HDI in the world (ahead of the US). But thanks to loneliness and toxic work culture, it also has a pretty bad suicide rate and depression problem. Being poor also doesnt mean you'll be in despair. I have seen kids in undeveloped rural villages that look happier than most city kids in the first world despite barely having an education and no healthcare whatsoever
Population decline is great for the environment, for economists and the super-rich not so much. This video didn't talk about taxing the rich, but taxing the young seems like a good solution when young people's salaries have not significantly increased.
@someone from no where Humans won't go extinct due to economic or demography disasters. We CAN go extinct due to natural and artificial disaster though
There are far too many people on the planet and we are burning resources in an unsustainable way. We need to get the population down and sort out our society to enable us to do it.
I welcome population decline with open arms. For years my country would demonize women who had lots of children, demonize people for having children while using welfare, demonize the lack of jobs or recourses due to the poor/ immigrants having lots of children. So why all of a sudden are we singing a different tune? More recourses to go around for all. If anything the pension system needs to be updated.
The one part of the income and expenditure equation that is missing is production. If we are producing more then there is more to go round, and an even bigger share if the population is decreasing. So there is a problem with this analysis as it takes no account of technological progress.
They already may 89% of the US income tax. Corporations also pay their fair share to society already not by taxes but by giving people jobs and World innovation.
What is happening in Europe is a population adjustment based on the future needs of society and is underway in many advanced societies. People behave like a large organism that adapts to environmental conditions to survive. The problem is that backward societies still have unsustainable and unrealistic demographic dynamics.
Isn't a return to a more sustainable population (2-3 billion) considered a way that we can mitigate or reverse the impacts of climate change? In that case the population declines and decrease in fertility rates should be taken as a good thing.
The thing here is, the population of the globe doesn't matter. If you check the data on food waste, you'll see that we produce enough to feed 10 billion people globally. Yet, a quarter of people starve because most of the excess food either goes into the bodies of obese people in first world countries or into the garbage. If the globe had 3 billion people, all the corporations would align their produce in a way that creates a sort of artificial scarcity, or scarcity will happen as a natural consequence of 20% of the population having 80% resources. Why do you think companies would help the poor when populations lower when they can create an unequal society, create more problems, device solutions, sell said solutions and make more money. A lower population will help, but not nearly to the extent you imagine.
The Catholic church in Spain decided to give full support to dictator Franco on a time when religion was shrinking in all of Europe (20s~30s). After the dictatorship was over, church's support on it kind of backfired.
yeah they were known as the catholic monarchy during the colonial days, catholicizing all the natives of the americas and imposing inquisitions in their imperial territories. Point is that societies can shift radically as time goes on.
@@El_Psy_Kongroo_ yeah they had really healthy fertility rates when they were fascist but when they became a liberal democracy with feminism and all the other nonsense the fertility rate tanked. They’re probably better of having a religious fascist regime cause at least they’ll still exist a hundred years from now
@@alvinlin8140 You probably mean that in a 100 years "Iberian Spanish ethnicity", or whatever you wanna call it, will no longer be a majority in Spain. In that case you are probably right. However whether that is a problem we should worry about or not is something that only depends on your morals and values. In my opinion (as a young Spaniard) the incoming collapse of the pension system is a much major problem than whatever may become the overall ethnicity of Spain in the future.
Immigration is not a solution .It just means that Developed countries are just offloading their problems to developing countries just like they do with pollution , etc , but not surprising considering that TLDR News are always portraying an Anglo-Saxon view on the world even on their global channel
The reality is that high birth rates benefit the rich because it increases the quantity of exploitable labor while hurting the poor who are the people being exploited. I am familiar with Colombia where in the last 40 years there has been a dramatic demographic transition from high birth rates to low. During this period, the availability of young women for domestic help has dropped dramatically while the wages of domestic workers has increased just as dramatically. This has brought many young women out of poverty. Don't believe people like the authors of this video who say that low a birth rate is bad for the economy. It is only bad for the rich. For the poor it is a boom.
TLDR really needs to pay more attention to the details of the infographics they're showing. For example, in this video TLDR keeps mistakenly putting the % sign next to the birth rates in various graphics. But birth rate isn't a %. Similar things were shown in the video about Boeing and Airbus where the speaker reading from the script says "Dollars", but the chart showed the price in "British Pounds" and later same script reader said "Euros" and the chart showed the prices with "$" next to the values.
It seems like the only real problem for a declining population is state pension? Wouldn't abolishing state pension, forcing people to save up their own private pension, be a potential solution for this? The world's population won't keep growing forever, so immigration from high fertility rate countries to low fertility rate countries won't always be a solution.
Abolishing state pensions is a good way to increase elder poverty rates. While immigration is a solution, we should use it, and hopefully find a different one later.
Superannuation is far too intelligent and sensible a policy, far better to keep taxing the young to pay for the old, thus lowering birth rates, thus requiring higher taxes, and so on and ride that self perpetuating cycle all the way to the floor and the disintegration of society.
And state provided healthcare, since older people use more resources. We should abolish that as well. Oh and boring things like "reforms in democratic society"? Yeah, they also get fucked, since large generation will vote for politicians that cater to them, outvoting small generations, and staying in power for much longer, even if they no longer understand the challenges of today.
Unfortunately not, getting rid of old age pensions gust leads to old age poor or them never leaving the workforce potentially costing young workers even more.
Unfortunately if history holds true your country will have this issue eventually when it becomes as developed as the country's whith declining birth rates are.
Honestly, there’s a very good chance that life extension technology will solve this problem entirely. It won’t be long before the average human gains more than 1 year of increased life expectancy through improved healthcare per year that goes by, something called ‘longevity escape velocity’. Once this happens, there will be no physical health reason to retire and people will probably want to carry on working to support themselves. Also, if people are staying healthier for longer, the short term effect is much less strain on healthcare.
The health span is not increasing. The people might live longer in average, but they are vegetating the last years in care homes. Increasing the life span is just going to strengthen the problem as there are more people to be supported. Advancement in medicine leads only to more unhealthy people.
perhaps but keep in mind that A.this technology needs to be widely distributed enough to the point where many have access to it at an affordable price B.if people have the money to buy this then they will most likely simply retire early since they have more money to support themselves meaning that now the old retired population actually increases instead of decreases since more people can retire. now the governments of countries could just increase the retirement age but that still would not change the fact that less babies are being born to replace the older and the aging population while i think the idea is interesting i dont think its a surefire stop to this problem
My country faces this problem --- awareness is increasing. What to do? Nothing. Just let things play out naturally -- most of us will end up working until we die
Why the panic about a falling population. It will be great when the population falls. Cheaper housing, plenty of food, less traffic, less pollution, more space, the environment will recover etc etc. And babies take far more looking after than older people, so no big deal
Because you end up with a society where you have very few young working people to support a very large population of retired old people. Economic collapse is likely to occur before birthrates level off at replacement level. Different countries are addressing it differently. Singapore is literally paying couples to have children, but even that isn't working, so they have resorted to mass immigration. Japan has predicted their population will level off at 80 million, but have no idea if their economy will survive the several decades it will take for their birth rates to level off at replacement level.
2 things can be very effective for solving this problem : 1. Governments must try to make "raising children" less expensive, less time consuming. (this doesn't work alone itself) 2. If you can make people think that "Life is not for getting pleasure and fun all the time. Family relations and raising a new generation is more important." then people will be more willing to have kids. For decades, movie makers, mucisians and others who are idolised by the people are advicing them "Living their lives for themselves. Seeking personal pleasure and fun etc." Some religions are very effective for solving this problem but most of the "modernist people" see those religions as "backwardism".
To your second point, Why should I spend my time and money raising expensive kids because politicians want a bigger tax base? All while they don't do jack for me or regulate housing prices to make it affordable.
@@leonidas14775 Housing is just as important and a human right, if not more than healthcare. So why isnt there a National Housing Service that provides each family with a home free of charge? Homebuilders can either be contractors paid by the govt per home built, or be civil servants that build homes. Realtors can be the nurses or receptionists in this analogy. And I don't mean only to those who cannot afford--i mean everyone. We (UK, et al) don't just provide healthcare to the poor, we provide it to all.
@@leonidas14775 We have reasons to have kids but nobody can force you to accept those reasons. Of course "Having kids for creating a bigger tax base." is not a convincing reason for the people. People need religious, philosophical or ideological or emotional... more powerful reasons.
Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates on earth, about 1.1 per woman, yet its population is among the fastest-growing in the east and southeast Asia. Maybe skilled immigration can help stem the population decline, particularly for countries like Japan, that shrinks by over 400K every year
Nobody expected the Spanish atheism.
ngl that did surprise me
@@tobis9585 x2
It is funny that country know for it's spanish inquisition. Now it is atheist
NOBODY EXPECTED THE SPANISH ATHQUIZITION
As a native spanish speaker I'm shocked x_x
In Romania the population drop is more linked to people migrating to other European countries for better living condition.
Romania's population is about 19M and the diaspora is 4.3M and growing.
Yes, being romanian,I agree. The salaries are not great,and higher education is also not very good. Plus, it is very easy to become a doctor without higher education for example. There is a great joke that is mostly true and goes like this:
Ion (or John in English) asked a japanese man why Japan was so devoloped. The japanese said: "We have one smart man for every 9 stupid men, while you have one stupid man for every 9 smart men."
Ion says: "So, what?"
The japanese says: "In Japan, the smart man rules the stupid men. In Romania, the stupid man rules the smart men."
@@andreizonga4611 as a romanian too,I totally agree with you,with both,as you all can ser,all of this part of Europe has the same problem.
Yea. 3% of the italian population has romanian origins.
@Robert Valentin Translation: Romanians also don't make children because of poverty.
Our biggest problem is the ineffective goverment bc if the life standards would rise we wouldn't even have this discussion. The fertility rate in Romania is pretty good but the people migrating is what makes the population decline
Wages are low, house prices are through the roof, everyone's busy trying to be secure rather than bringing children up young n working around them.
He is talking about the reasons why young people can't have kids, not about young people who already have children.
Housing is just as important and a human right, if not more than healthcare. So why isnt there a National Housing Service that provides each family with a home free of charge? Homebuilders can either be contractors paid by the govt per home built, or be civil servants that build homes. Realtors can be the nurses or receptionists in this analogy.
And I don't mean only to those who cannot afford--i mean everyone. We (UK, et al) don't just provide healthcare to the poor, we provide it to all.
@RoastWorthy i dont doubt they're happy with kids, but if youre a 19 year old in college are you REALLY going to risk having kids? I'm not going to have kids until I've graduated college, let alone have my own home.
I'd have children if I could see a good life ahead for them, but unfortunately it looks like a shit show from here to the horizon. Bringing children into such a chaotic world is doing them a favor how? 🤷♂️
@RoastWorthy
UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, section 1:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
All UN member states have signed such and former US first lady Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft it.
Population decline in Portugal is happening because of really stupid reasons:
- Low wages / low child support
- Parents don't have time to take care of their children (I believe this is one of the biggest factors). People *work too much* and when they have children they have almost no time to take care of them, which discourages people from having them.
- Emigration, mainly young people emigrating and not having children in Portugal
Just a minor quibble: sometimes you show fertility rate on screen with a percent sign tagged on, although that doesn't make much sense, since it's just a number (the average number of babies per woman).
agreed, it's a little confusing, but it's just a little problem, I love the graphics of these videos :3
@@jnimitzch4738 1.5 babies per 100 women is clearly incorrect...
@Billy O'sullivan an average of 1.5 children for every 100 women? Do you understand what this actually means? Also, you are aware that who I was replying to deleted their comment right?
You’re wrong it’s incorrect. For example it’s 1.66 babies per woman in the UK. Therefore not a percentage.
Average mean,
100 woman having 200 babies = 2 babies per woman...
In the paper... but a single woman can have 3 o 4 and others dont... is just a number not the reality.
Here in my country i meet a woman who have 5 kids from 3 different men :v... i almost create the 6 lol :v
“Why is this happening?”
Life is expensive bruh.
Blame america
@@tforaodg blame another country for your problems. Classic…
Specifically America. It costs an arm and a leg for a baby because we don't a single payer system like other countries.
Exactly. Life is too expensive even in Africa.
@@alexanderg1297 Well in this case, it is valid. USA push free trade all over the world with their media and their politic. And their version of free trade: Free trade without regulation.
Having kids isn’t a numbers game. You have to raise them and that ain’t easy.
Especially when one is a single parent...
@@Lea-rb9nc or people who don't have kids think they have the right to tell you how to raise yours.
@@maureenmiaullis6427 My children are grown. I don't tell others how to raise their children but as a therapist and Child Protection officer, I've conducted many parenting courses and worked with individuals as well.
If you are poor, it becomes a numbers game at least on a subconscious level. For middle class, it's about legacy.
@@Lea-rb9nc how your 2nd sentence contradicts itself.
I live in Greece, and the problem here is huge. Immigration to other countries, low wages, and modern way of life effect new families. And most of the 2010+ families have only one child
And one child isn't enough!
And another big problem in Greece is that no one wants to remain in the villages. Every young person wants to move to Athens or Thessaloniki. Greece probably doesn't grow enough food to feed itself.
@@استاذدانيال yeah man, i still visit my grandparents at my village and like many others, the place is empty. This is not food security. Big problem
@@استاذدانيال Cities are screwing over countries.
When corporations and automation pushes working age people out of a job maybe governments should tax the corporations to pay for older people.
There is a plan for that, a tax “per machine”.
Which would probably end up just being a tax on equivalent human output per hour.
Per machine would obviously be unworkable, they are not standardised. So it would be a nightmare to calculate.
@@mrmagoo-i2l Seems like something smart algorithms would be good for.
BuT ThEy ArE aLrEaDy To HeAvY TaXeD
@@muffinmendy7327 Not really, they use tax loopholes and havens to avoid paying,
if the government put an end to tax avoidance there would be plenty for a UBI system to enable exactly this. But any politician who tried that would be assassinated much like the journalist who uncovered the panama papers.
Having 1 child is a luxury nowadays. No one can afford to reproduce
Africans enter the chat
Having a child has always been a luxury if you want to give it a luxurious lifestyle.
You can move into the country side and raise a child the way that people in less developed countries do.
I'm an African and l think that people should consider their financial situation and the future prospects of the kids before having them because apparently they haven't been doing that, you see a lot of people who don't have any stable income having kids just because they feel that that is what they should be doing and then they set these kids up for failure, knowing full well that the country they live in has nothing to offer these kids in terms of economic prospects or a decent life.
Welfare recipients have kids like rabbits, but do they pay anything for their sustenance or anything else? Of course not! WE DO, AS TAXPAYERS!
People often forget that, not only does the working class have to support the old non working class, but they also have to support the upcoming working class, kids and students. However you look at it, for working class its always difficult.
China: institutes one child policy
Also China: "we have a 1.6 fertility rate"
I think it used to allow it's ethenic minority to have 2 kids though I doubt that
@@sol90981 ah, yeah, that does sound familiar now that you mention it
now they push it into 3 children policy, but no one's is interested tho lmao
China: surprised Pikachu face.
@@sol90981 no. Back in the days the 1 child policy didn’t apply to ethnic monitories because of ‘cultural religious differences’ blah blah. The autonomous regions had the power to choose to adopt or not. Some basically adopted it but only applied to Han Chinese living in their regions.
The enforcement was arbitrary and very loose in the beginning, then strengthened in late 80s and 90s and loosened again after 2000s. After 2000s the consequences of having more than 1 baby is purely financial and that coincided with China’s explosive economic growth. It was basically a one-time tax to have more babies.
people whose first child has disabilities are allowed to have more children. There were also some other exceptions
I’m Dutch. Our population went from 3 million to 17 million in just a century. We are very densely populated. It would be a blessing if we go back to 10 or 12 million. Slowly.
not something you want
Weird
i’m glad you added slowly on the end
Then you'll have a country full of old people.
But I think Dutch may still be 3 million only.
Overlooking the fact that most people pay towards their own retirement all their working life.
Many people do not plan for retirement let alone plan adequately for retirement...
@@leilahassim7025 Good point!
Do most Americans have 401K's or IRA's - ?
@@JohnSmith-eo5sp yes and no. Most Americans with good jobs have 401k
Even if they do, all they are really doing is potentially increasing their share of the work output of the people who are working during the years when the retiree is retired. Not that I'm in the natalist camp, the productive output of modern technology combined with the extra space and greater bargaining power for labor available from a lower working population, should make for a better future than present. So long as the politics don't get too aristocratic and dystopian.
There is a huge problem of talking about this only in terms of the problems it causes. It falls out of line with our ideas about permanent economic growth, and certainly presents challenges.
But global populations are already unsustainably high. Part of solving climate change is, frankly, just having less people. The challenges of low fertility are nothing compared to the challenges of biosphere collapse.
The thing is, people are already hate the current state of the economy to the point where you have conspiracy theories that climate action is just an excuse to lover living standards. A lot of people will not accept another hit to their already precarious monetary situation.
The ironic thing is that climate friendly policy is most likely a good thing for the economy but good luck explaining it to a 40 something high school dropout who sees "everything is expensive now! I have to work 12 sifts to keep my car fuelled!" It's an easy mindset to fall into when you hate the economy...
When it takes until your mid 30s in so much countries to be able to live comfortably and stabilize yourself economically, why would anyone have kids? As more evidence it is an economic qnd not cultural issue (e.g. hesitance to have kids for reasons other than economic stability) just look at top flight footballers who are econimcally stable and having kids in their 20s
True
Or you live on an "unsafe" 'hood and think "No way I'm subjecting a child to this Hell when I can't leave myself". And then, if you do leave, you get to the case you describe above. If lucky, by which point you'll just say "Not Worth It Anymore".
Make it so people can marry and have a good job in the 20's and there will be more children. Many women wait to 30's or 40's to settle down, way to late to find a life partner.
@@MasterGhostf What about the men? Are men in their 20's also willing to settle down? It's not just the woman's fault, we can't just pick any man and get him to marry.
@@sunnysunshine8897 of course. Many guys want to settle down, but with college it's hard. And I don't blame women for waiting after college. Which is roughly 22-24. Same with men..we all have to improve and make ourselves the best we can be and keep the effort when were in a relationship. Same goes for men as well as women. To me there is a large societal issue that isn't being talked about but will be a major issue in a few decades.
Another potential problem with education is how long it takes. Typically at least a university degree is something that is sought after, meaning that you will not be out of uni until ~23-24 years old at best. As people age having children becomes more difficult. I know we are in this boat, because we are in our 30ies and only now are attempting at our first child due to making sure we are stable.
I hope your attempts are successful! Sending good luck
Fertility doesn't really decline all that much in your 30's, a 25 year old has a 87% chance to get pregnant in a year of trying, a 37 year old has about 84% chance. And most of the drop is due to stuff like obesity and genetic conditions. So if you stay healthy and don't have underlying conditions, there is no need to worry.
@@hamstsorkxxor while true it does limit the amount of time you have to have more kids. We are in a similar situation, we are discussing kids as we want 3 but starting at age 35 or so means that my gf would need to go really fast to get there
Who'd want to immigrate to China? Some Chinese are immigrating to the Philippines.
Yeah, I was able to finish my masters at a university at 29. It was too long, bachelor degree at 24 would´ve sufficed... To this day I´m primarily working and making money to have any chance of starting a family of my own. Not enough money means no woman and no kids. So I won´t probably raise the reproduction number, just drag it down. If I´m a parent, then only an old one :/
I am a Greek .Greece's population is declining rapidly .When I was a child ,it was 11 million .Now it goes to 10 . In the contrary UK' s population was 61 million when I came ,fifteen years ago and now is 68 .It looks to me that people go wherever there are opportunities .
The other solution is to pay working people way more, it's hard to support oneself with the salaries that you sometimes have to accept let alone a family
If women stop working and become stay at home mothers again, then the wages will double (just like they were before feminism). It's just basic supply and demand. As a bonus, that also makes life easier for pregnant women (since they don't need to work), and the mothers can homeschool their children (easing the burden on the public school system).
@@SchemingGoldberg no, they won't double. In reality the ownership class will always find a way to keep wages low. In 19th century with "traditional gender roles" wages were barely enough to survive.
And stop telling half of population what to do based on group they happen to be born into.
"Before the feminism" lol when was it? In 50s-60s? You mean when union membership was much higher and taxes on the rich were higher, and USA experienced rapid growth due to being only developed country not destroyed by WW2, and Europe due to aid from USA and restoration of economy from war destruction? But, surely, wages were higher only cause women rarely worked, aha
@@SchemingGoldberg Wages won't double if the size of the available labor force halves! Instead, businesses which can't find workers will close and the economy will shrink.
Bear in mind that if women left the workforce, the remaining male workers wouldn't suddenly become twice as productive to compensate! Consequently, total productivity will halve and economic growth will decrease. As the same time, household incomes will also decrease by whatever percentage was being earned by the woman, leaving households with less disposable income.
You've also overlooked that today there are more single women aged 20-30 and more couples without children aged 30-40. Removing these women from the workforce would result in a loss of skilled labor for no gain.
@@SchemingGoldberg Sounds like garbage a MRA would spew
The only solution is to give women less rights like arranged marriages. Eastern Euros have low birth rate but the all the gypsy in those countries have high birth rate because of arranged marriages at a young age
Italy's population decline and Japan's population decline are a very similar phenomenon in the way that it's happening and why. It's fascinating to me as an italian and as someone fascinated by Japan. The more i get interested the more things in common i find.
But you guys don't have Hentai.
@@ibraced1243 we have pasta tho...
@@alessandrodonadi1368 sorry, can't fap to pasta.
Italy has Mario though...
Oops. Wrong country.
@@ibraced1243 Don't give Rule34 ideas.
"China doesn't do immigration"
True. Also it's not like a lot of people would like to go there if you can choose Europe.
even if we cant choose Europe communism is worse if i ever go to china ill just try to make money as fast as i can and then go home and you cant make all that much money in china so no one is stupid enough to immigrate there
@@abdullahshabaneh8648 China is not really communist anymore, not saying I am going there though
@@kkmac7247 aren’t they about to force Hong Kong to be Communist
@@abdullahshabaneh8648 to be Chinese,and single-party. Fascist Germany was one party, definitely not communist. (yes I know that China is not fascist, just an example)
China accepts very few immigrants
Portugal has introduced incentives like the None Habitual Residency scheme however that only really attracted retiree's Their other incentive was the Golden Visa aimed at rich foreigners who had to spend over 300,000 euros on property and or start a business and employ ten people. Both schemes registered both success and failure . Interestingly in the last ten yrs young people have found Portugal and are moving here ,mainly as digital nomads ,or off grid families. The reason for that seems to be mainly the climate ,The space , The cheaper properties .The excellent conditions of health care ,general services etc..They have been surprised to find that Portugal is not a third world country.It's well rung and actually has higher standards than many so called 1st world countries .Language can be deemed a problem .In the south however English is spoken everywhere .English is the business, scientific and medical language So not such a problem in those areas.It's good and obviously advantageous in the long run to learn the language though .
I might think about Portugal actually thanks I know someone who is a native from there, very nice guy. Quite funny to.
The housing in Canada is nuts I'm just north of Barrie Ontario and it's $800 thousand for a house.
Yea the GTA is insane. Even places like London, Cambridge, Milton, Kitchener, are going through the roof. I guess getting out of urbanized places in Ontario, Quebec, & B.C. are the only short term solutions. But the problem is the government is too dependent on property taxes to ever fix the housing crisis. The higher the value of the house the larger amount they can get via annual property taxes. If there was real economic growth the government wouldn't be dependent on extracting revenue from tax slaves (a.k.a. "citizens") primary place of shelter. Then again Canada has been going up and down between 1971 to 2001. Slowly & steadily going down between 2001 to 2011. And since 2011 the negative rate has been increasing year over year. I suspect after this Corona BS 2021 to 2031 is going to be alot worse than 2001-2011. Hopefully I'm proven wrong; and the bureaucrats stop abusing their tax slaves and actually have a long term prosperous plan. If not then I suspect the immigration rate will continue to slow down, along with the fertility rate, and more people will try for greener pastures. We this already happening the beginning of the brain & labour drain from the West to the East & South. We are seeing a slow and steady increase of Western Europeans & North Americans moving to China, India, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Philippines, Turkey, Azerbaijan, & there were 3 African countries that I can't remember at the moment. I hope I'm proven wrong b/c Canada has great potential to be a great power of the 21st Century like the countries on the come up besides China & Russia; we have Iran, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, & India. If countries like Canada, Argentina, Chile, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Hungary, UAE, Rwanda, & Pakistan can get their acts together they possibly have a bright future ahead of them. Also the biggest problem for Canada is going to be as the USA continues to deteriorate we should be expecting climate refugees from the USA by the tens of millions. If not we may see a resurgence of manifest destiny if the worst comes to pass. Hopefully when the time comes the USA balkanizes peacefully instead of starting WW3/4 and or trying to invade Canada for its resources. Also lastly we need to secure our portion of the Artic. Especially concerning the northwest passage. We will need to work with Denmark/Greenland/Iceland on this one though. With their portion of the Artic circle & northwest passage Just like the Russians have secured their northeast passage. Peace.
@@JKTProductionzIncNCo China has a negative net migration and Hong Kong will as well once the Chinese gov't is done with the restructuring. Western Europeans and North Americans on a mass scale will not be leaving to go to any of those countries you listed. All of those countries have an unpredictable future especially with climate change coming. The only desirable countries to move to will be Canada, the U.S (mainly the northern states), and Russia. China will not allow immigration and very few people would want to go there anyways. The U.S will never invade Canada "for its resources". Our country is its biggest customer, our businesses are so integrated with each other it literally would not be feasible. If the U.S invaded Canada half of the corporations on the S&P500 would collapse.
Lets talk about real estate prices in Sydney
@@tj_yt_ Yeah, only in my dreams could by a house for $800,000 in Sydney.
That’s cheap compared to the GTA
There are 8 billion too many people on the planet - if the population declines naturally over time, more space and quality of life for everyone and maybe even fill employment instead of wage slavery…. I don’t think this is bad, I believe it’s good and should be supported.
Unaffordable house price is the best form of birth control
on the contrary
@@elodin857 if I can't get a house I'm not attracting any partner. And I can't make kids alone.
@@meneither3834 true, but generally the richer the country the less they have kids. You can atract a partner without a house for a while though.
@@elodin857 I don't see how reproducing habits of the wealthy change that fact, I get that you're saying that "even people with that can easily afford a house still don't have many children."
But that's unrelated to my problem right now.
@@meneither3834 I know I know, it is unrelated to your problem in a way. I'm just pointing out that people have managed to have kids in the worse conditions throughout history and we can't even get to do it in the easiest time to have them.
The world does not need more people. We need a new economic plan that works for less people. Work smarter and live smarter, after all we are suppose to be the smartest animals on the planet, except it seems economists and people that listen to their mantra.
@We're living in a paradox. We humans got to this point and we get more and more. If we are as much as 50 oder 100 years aho that wouldnt be that bad.
And its not only about the amount of people, if everyone gets educated to a high level the chance if someone creating something new is higher than a society that is 10 or more times bigger but only gives a few people the high education
Less people with higher quality life and more egalitarian is the answer to majority of problems.
Yes indeed. Our whole economic system and civilization need a major restructuring and a new approach to what is really important in life. Unfortunately I think the necessary changes won't happen. Brace yourselves and prepare for the global economic crash.
You advocate for a new economic plan that works for fewer people, the GOP has the same plan. Humans are not the smartest animal on the planet. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with destroying it.
The World does need a stable population growth so that there are enough young to replace the old.
Migration is just a quick fix that is available right now. In the not so long term, population decline will hit hard everywhere.
We are currently at 7.9 billion worldwide. I would say any decrease would be desirable.
World Population grow until 2100
Increased automation magnifies the productivity of each remaining worker. That's one important variable he didn't discuss.
@@muysli.y1855 not quite. At 2100 it will be already declining. From what i have read a few months ago the "highest" point of population will be around 2070. And around 2100 we will already be at under 9 billion again
In 79 years when we hit 10 billion. A lot can change in 79 years to push that growth up higher and longer.
Population decline on planet earth: GREAT !!
It is pretty good news.
no just in developed countries while it is exploding in poor countries like Africa and middle east. even in my country Afghanistan, despite war and poverty, it is so much increasing. we really dont know what to do with our people
@@masihullahhasanyar1084 What is your problem? Your pple dead in war of 20 years and they need to recover it. So I don’t get why you need declining population or i misunderstood y?
@@halalpolice23 well. Having a young generation is a blessing if the economy works well and there are enough jobs, else it will increase the crime rate and will provide basis for their recruitment in terrorist groups. This is exactly what we are seeing now. Overpopulation while lack of investment
there was a population boom in the 50's and now that is correcting itself. Short term pain for long term gain.
I rather go with the one child policy than having a fast growing population who's almost 60% of it is part of poverty.
People don’t have time or money to have children because we’re all busy working to keep the millionaires and billionaires in private jets, houses and of course the huge hoarded bank accounts.
When I was young, my parents had about the same as I had on a fairly reasonable single salary.
Today i would get way less and have to work way more hours.
We’re being squeezed.
Thats the real reason of this problem. We buy too much shit we don't need and in that pursuit of nothing we make excuses of not having kids.
@@digitalmohsin no…the reason is we’re being squeezed. Asking folks to only survive so they can procreate is piss poor. Folks want to live, and they want their children to be able to live and live nicely, not just survive. If you can’t make a better world for your kids, why have them?
@@bdott1538 Not really, there are people being born in Africa and Asia that are living without 90% of the stuff we take for granted in USA. I can say this as I grew up in one such country where there was no electricity for 10 hrs per day. My car didn't have airbags, I didn't have Alexa, smart bulbs, fancy mattresses, TVs, smart watches, instantpot, entertainment subscriptions still I managed to come to US and still doing better than most people here. The point is our mentality is we gotta have it cuz he/she has it. We consume beyond our means. It's not hard to have two kids we have been having kids for centuries and never faced such shitty time as today.
@@digitalmohsin I have only a few airbags in my car since I only buy used. Well some would call me old fashioned and over the hill but I pride myself on wasting much less than others and not being with people just because of their money or material possessions
@@digitalmohsin really? This thinking is stupid you know? Buy s...t we don't need. Dude have you ever tried living as a monk or a farmer? Do you know how hard firstly mentally this work is? People buy as you called s...t they don't need, cuz they want to feel life, what it is like to live luxurious life. Our parents sold their souls to earn money. Money is the thing which really brings you happiness, i know it sounds harsh, but it is a reality. People constantly look tvs read journals, they see how freakingly great the life of rich people is. But not all of us are talented, but we all want the same thing, so this is why people are dying out
In Serbia the average salary is in the range of 300-400 euros. Impossible to have kids with such low wages.
How do we fix ballkans man ;-; There has to be a way *snif*
@@bajlozi6873 balkans never been good
@@niggacockball7995 they were until the Turks came along. And then theres the two balkan wars, two world wars and a few civil wars.
@@elseggs6504 Slavs should have united, and never let Turks invade the Balkans
@@ireneuszpyc6684 maybe, but thats quite unlikely. Not even turkic people did that. And I think the Rus had entirely different issues.
Evidently, endless population growth is a problem ... and so is the lack of population growth? What's the problem here?
For someone from Pakistan where population has exponentially exploded in the last two decades, this all seems surreal. Before I lived overseas, my gf from a village in Pakistan had 9 brothers and sisters. Nine! And that wasn’t a particularly exceptional number for the villages.
It’s not so much religion as it is the communal way of life.
@@qwerasdliop2810 that's not a impressive dream.
@@qwerasdliop2810 hope it never happens
@@qwerasdliop2810 even India population is now stabalising with Fertility rate of 2.2
@@doandroidsdream1748 how about no people at all?
@@qwerasdliop2810 i dream of machinery and robots replace humans
I wonder if the expansion of remote work will help reverse population declines. If people can work from home away from cities, expensive land will be less of an issue.
But cities will still be the place most people will live because then you don't have to drive an hour to go to the nearest McDonalds.
If work from home becomes something companies can pull off successfully they'll just outsource those jobs to Asia.
No people need to stay in cities otherwise there won’t be any nature left
@@railroadforest30 Each for their own.
@@billcipherproductions1789 not enough room in the world that’s why we need live in cities
Greetings from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 :')
The reason of dropping rate in Latvia is that there is almost no future, salary here is low(it's high only for those "smartheads" in the government.)
The prices in store keep getting more and more expensive, a lot of people now can't even afford their favourite meals or products, because they keep getting more expensive, and a lot of people who work in a minimum wage works, need to count their last euros to survive until next wage.
Also utility prices and taxes are getting 2 and even 4 times more expensive.
Also a lot of professions are no use in Latvia, and also another reason is weather and geographical condition, weather here is pretty wet and in winter it's cold because of wetness and also in summer it's too hot because of wet air. And also a lot of people emigrate to other countries with better life quality, for example, Scandinavia, Canada, USA, western Europe etc.
Our language is also slowly shrinking, because people who live abroad start forgetting it and don't teach it to their children's and also we have a lot of Russian people who don't learn Latvian language(mostly old ones). And also English is moderately overtaking Latvian language in Latvia.
And also Latvia is one of those countries that will be under water if water level keeps growing.
Make a video on Israel’s fertility rate, how Israel maintains a fertility rate of 3.1 even though they are a developed country and allow abortions.
Religion
If I'm not mistaken Israel is very religious, i don't know enough about the culture in relation womens, but it is a factor in other places.
As others have said. They are very religious and this is a big contributor.
Israeli nationalist have many children to have a bigger population than Palestinians, and vice-versa
They will feel it is their duty.
After a certain mustachio having Austrian was as Monty Python would say “a very naughty boy”.
I just think having kids isn’t even on my mind right now
sad
@@pengy897 It happens all the time lately. Women don't even think about having kids because for some reason in our culture it's seen as just a deadweight and then when they try to at 30 1/3rd already can't.
I want to have kids once I’m out of college and get a job that pays at least 90k (I’m doing web development) so that it’s easier to take care of them.
@@elodin857 "For some reason in our culture it's seen as just a deadweight"
Do you have any other words that describe having to deal with kids?
At the same time they're going through their early career and getting set up in life, women need to make a choice: Career on hold for kids or kids on hold for career?
Kids are immensely expensive, especially for the first decade when you need childcare if you don't have a parent at home all the time.
That's ignoring the huge chunks of time off work that you need to factor in for maternity leave. It's also ignoring the fact that I'm pretty certain the time pregnant isn't a fun time for the mother.
I'll probably never understand why people have kids in the first place. It all seems like no upside and all downside to me.
@@deathbower prime example of what I said. Why the hell is a carreer preferable than having your own children? Of course it's hard, but it's the most rewarding thing in most people's lives. A job is what you do to get money.
As a millennial born in Canada, I'd love to have some children but aside from the general difficulty of just finding someone who actually shares my values and the difficulties with refusing not sacrificing a personal life for a career it doesn't really matter how much I *want* children haven't them simply isn't a possibility. (either I get a good paying job and sacrifice more of my personal life or I find a woman who wants to work but generally that also means not having children because it will hurt their career prospects)
It's the kobayashi maru of having children.
yup the cost of living is going through the roof its getting ruff and all the things happening in canada are just going to continue to make life more expensive. its almost better for you to go gay and have a buddy than to get a woman pregnant and have all that expense that you cant afford.
That last line already determined you are VERY unlikely to have kids anyways
@@paulallen6928 lmao. What a sad fate
@@paulallen6928 Actually I'm a second generation Trekkie so I've statistically already proven you wrong.
Go full Kirk and cheat.
They say that having a great life is being able to pay for things you don't need (with money you don't have) ; and having time to kill with distractions that will make you feel empty.
Don't fall for that : having a great life is living for your family. Find a woman who thinks likewise and is thus ready to forego her carreer and to have children before she turns 30.
Your kids will be raised with exactly what is good for them : few things & dedicated parents.
Your wife won't have the stress of combining family life and the pursuit of a carreer - and she definitely can start a full-time job at 40 once the last kid reaches high-school. You can have your can *then* eat it, you see.
You will have the most meaningful life a man can hope for. Having a family depend on you is the last adventure. Just don't get afraid of not being secure - because there is no such thing in real life.
"Spain, Quebec, Ireland"
Dude Quebec is still a province, don't provoke another referendum again, lol.
Vive le Québec Libre 😏
@@ethanelpendejo good luck 🙂
Destabilizing countries since 1490s. British will be british 🤣🤣
What an irony people used to fear about overpopulation some years back.
The global population is still growing. Its only these countries in decline, mostly from the west
@@maxbraddy8003 true but global population too will reach its peak and decline
@@maxbraddy8003 where the pollution are at their worse
Overpopulation was never an issue. Underpopulation is
overpopulation is an issue, we do not have unlimited production
The reason behind all this is capitalism. We see everything in terms of finance and children are simply a bad investment - they are incredibly expensive and they don't give you any bonuses. In our economic system it simply makes more financial sense to be single and childless
True my friend. You are right
Hey I was pregnant with my first and the physio I needed to see because pregnancy related pain startled me by saying people not having children were so very very selfish. I was shocked. Just as shocked when folks say people having children is selfish.
@@zoeolsson5683 i meant in countries with a 1B + population, sorry for being rude if you were talking to me
@@theepiccommenter7833 countries with 1B populations already have their fertility rates falling below replacement value. Children are a joy but as S Ryan put it "are simply a bad investment" Society expects to have it's cake and eat it too. It wanted women to strenghthen the economy but does not realise how critical that traditional"work' women used to do was. Mothers are unpaid labourers for the investment of the future economy. all they get is a crumby card and bunch of flowers once a year. Could you imagine companies/businesses being expected to make infrastructure for society without any financial input? oh the sooks they would give to the government.
To be honest both men and women need to spend time together after the birth of their baby to strengthen each other and their family unit promote breastfeeding and bonding - basically serving their new mini over lord. And society just needs to realise that 's the cost .... the dinks and the sinks need to start taking part in the care economy too. you can't see yourself as just a worker but also a carer too. (I am using hetronomitive/intact family terms but rushing off and easier to just get the idea out using old language - just a comment on a youtube page - but of course my terms and languages needs to promote inclusivity and families of allsorts.)
Typically leadership of most countries of the west are rich boys from single sex schools - they don't get real world people. We here in Australia have had a falling fertility rate for 40 years. 40 years no one has done anything. So people with uteruses have this super power to take this tiny contribution and make another human being. And misogynistic society says yep you get nothing for all that work. Many women want to have babies but having a career gives you respect and a financial future .... babies not so much.
@@theepiccommenter7833 oh and sorry for my ranty reply .... lol... unsuspectedly comes out .... I used to earn big money now nothing as a mum and I have never worked as hard in my whole life. I have chosen poverty but I can see how others would make different choices. To casually apply a blanket people having children as selfish is shocking. the choice to have children is personal and people should be supported to have children if that's what they want to do. Society gets great benefit from having children .... it's got to stop thinking it's free.
Why does this discussion focus exclusively on the problems. Population decline is not a disaster. It creates problems (as discussed in this video) and benefits (not mentioned). These include: reduced impact on the environment due to reduced consumption, fewer vehicles, less energy use, less mining, less travel, less agriculture etc etc etc. It also reduces the need for houses, schools, workplaces etc etc.
You are right. But the politicians are shit-scared because they keep winning elections by promising generous pensions to a certain cohort that is very large and influential; those pensions can only be maintained by an ever-growing population. So they have to frame it as the one big issue.
Too many people on this planet anyway. People are tired of struggling only to be taxed into Oblivion. Retirement is another issue. People are just trying to live and enjoy life without the corporations using us like a disposable Duracell battery.
Duracell battery
🤣🤣
2:36 actually, South Korea's fertility rate in the last few years has been:
2017: 1.05
2018: 0.98
2019: 0.92
2020: 0.84
2021: Could go as low as 0.7
Yeah it's the only country with fertility rate less than one
@@Zero-ok9ze less than 1 you mean?
@@KateeAngel oops yeah
Taiwan is the lowest in the world at 0.7
@@plumeria66 i can find any article that says Taiwan’s TFR is that low; the most common number I get is 1.07 for 2020.
How can people have children when the super rich are devouring the world's wealth and leave nothing for the average man to support his family?
Wealth inequality absolutely exist in Africa but they still have many kids for the purpose of trying to get their family to become wealthier since kids are easily affordable and will provide the family with wealth
Maybe, just maybe if there were more policies against house hoarding and they increased the supply in construction to lower housing prices, more young people would be willing to buy a house and start a family. But as usual greed has its long term price.
I think there needs to be an alternative to increasing the birth rate and immigration. Bring in the robots and let’s all work fewer hours!
It's refreshing to see an optimistic person in this comment section lol thank you
Japans truing that. It’s not working.
Good idea. Who's going to build and upkeep these machines? A small number of people in comparison to the number of people that used to do said jobs. And those people are being paid less than the cumulative jobs that the machines they are building and working on are replacing. So less money into the system and cheaper costs means that companies will sell their prices for cheaper, right? Yes! But not enough to where their bottom line is "hurt" when they could also sell at the same price for a long time and slowly decrease prices and make more money, fluffing those at the top who are more likely to not be spending all that they make and hold onto it for longer since they already have all that they need, hence less money in the system being circulated. Less money in the system=lower prices, right? Not necessarily. Especially for things that are necessities like housing and food staples, they'd all decrease only a little in order to be competitive, bit still nowhere near as low enough for the ratio of money our there as they are necessities. Which also means less money in people's pockets for extra things that aren't ass needed in life, but spending money in various areas in necessary for the economy. We'd need a whole overturn on how money and society functions as well as how companies are ran if we are going to properly implement robots as the main workforce of the future, but that's money that govs don't want to spend. Plus, your work fewer hours is only possible if we are paid the same for those fewer hours as the original set of hours, but with how minimum wage is like and how companies treat employees, we know how that works out. Love your optimism though! But cold realism is too fun to not shoot it down with.
@@LemonyFresh2000 well yes they will need to at least stabilize the birth rates. I think the idea the OP was getting at is that with innovation and some proper planning automation can make a working person far more productive. Hypothetically to the point where a young working person can support multiple retired old people
There's only two good ways to solve low TFRS.
1. WORLD WAR WORLD WAR WORLD WAR WORLD WAR
2. Encouraging people of all genders to stay at home and raise children, not just women. If women can be in the work force nowadays, men also can take traditional women roles and raise children on their own.
Look at the bright side :
1. Reduced demand for variety of resources, such as oil, water, etc. Which are getting increasingly hard to get.
2. Reduced food demand, less stress on agriculture and animal farming, reduction in overfishing.
3. Reduced pollution, and CO2 emissions
4. Less people to fight for the same jobs
5. Easier management of public infrastructure
6. Lower demand of energy
7. Reduction in deforestation as a consequence of reduced demand of wood, farmland etc.
8. Potential Increase in wages due to reduced labour pool.
Yes, I think this will be better in the long run
But there is a point that it will cause negative economic effects.
Lesser people to wage a war when the enemy invades lol
Thank you so much for all your work and research. I am deeply touched that you even included us from Québec as an example for the third variable for population decline (religion) in a society. As well as the way you objectively address all topics as best you can and giving us insight from all angles as much as possible. Merci beaucoup, bonne journée!! 👍🏻⚜️👌🏻💙🤍💪🏻
In Canada, we have a massive housing crisis. It's extremely expensive in Toronto and Vancouver. This is because most of the 400000/year migrations want these cities. Another factor is that the Millennium population, which is the biggest population demographic are all trying to get in the market too.
Canadian gov really should be building social housing to go WITH the proportionally large immigration to population ratio.
Any country I've lived in, immigrants will cluster in places other people from their nation came from. They create supportive communities to help them survive and navigate systems like: What is a SIN card? What is a tax return and I how do I fill it out?
It's unrealistic to expect the bulk of immigrants to go anywhere but major cities. Even if you look at Roman and Greek times, immigrants arrive in cities.
Then shut down the flood gates and let the Canadians sort things out.
With a declining population, the cost of housing decreases and this may be all that middle class canadians need to reproduce once again.
Now, the retirement funds need to be re arranged into a construct that isn't a pyramid scheme....
@@runningfromabear8354 and those immigrants that cluster together in Canada are generally racist towards minority ethnicities in those areas. especially in canada
@@MrDude826 Yea, but proposing something like that is labelled as racist. and I'm ethnic Afghan who gets mistaken for white sometimes
@@amazingamx1255 Pardon if I might sound insulting or condescending it's not my intention, why don't you change your name and religion to "fit in" and not be discriminated against.
Many european migrants in the 20th century anglicized their last names to pass as anglo saxon that way they wouldn't be looked
down on by the upper class.
My ancestors for example, changed their names and converted to the dominant religion in the region.
Countries will allow immigration. The immigrants will have to work for lesser pay lowering the pay of locals who will then have even lesser children. As the immigrants are educated, they will have lower birth rates as well and the cycle continues.
In a few hundred years we will be worried of small population, shortage of labor, too many pensioners and so on.
I am Portuguese.
Here the minimum wage is 665€ and usually rent prices are 500€
The decline of birth rates is a natural consequence from increasing productivity and lifestyle shift. I don't think it's reasonable to maintain the birth rates decades ago or even a century ago. That's just not how a society develops. However, I do agree that birth rates in some countries are dropping beyond this. What gov policies should focus upon is not to stimulate having kids by monetary means, but to relieve the burden off the shoulder of women who postpone or give up pregnancy due to financial/time problems.
@@jessesinclair3861 Why are you the way that you are? Their purpose is equal rights and educating dumbasses such as yourself that men are also VERY capable of giving a hand raising their own children. Besides, most households nowadays require much higher funding 1 person just wouldn't be able to sustain. This has nothing to do with feminism and especially nothing to do with LGBT.
@@jessesinclair3861 younger people just don't want kids because they think there are more important things in there life than to raise another
@@jessesinclair3861 I don't know if not having kids young and having less accidental kids is pretending to be men. wouldn't having kids if you don't want them be wasting your lives
@@jessesinclair3861 Well, that largely depends where you live, but workplace discrimination and strict abortion laws( not letting the women have a say in the matter) just to name but a few serious ones that still exist even in western countries. But fuck that, who cares? That's not my point, so don't even try going there. My point is your belief that these ideologies/organizations try "reducing white people's birth rates". How retarded is that? Just because you want a TOOL to raise your kids and keep quiet doesn't mean others want that too. Now do the world a favor and hire a nanny for your kids if you think that burden should fall under 1 person.
"Entirely planned strategy" lmao.
@@jessesinclair3861 Why do you keep diverting the subject? I have no interest in discussing human/women's rights with you and it wasn't mentioned in order to "generate an emotional response", it's literally feminism's and LGBT's sole purpose. What interests(or atleast used to) me is:
-What gives you the notion women aren't being exposed to both options.
- Why you're so obsessed with their "fulfilment in life" only being a housewife, especially when it's possible doing both.
- And why, oh why, do you actually think it affects world population in such a manner that's even worth mentioning? Seems like you're just forcfully shoving your agenda on unrelated subjects to piss people off. Congrats, you succeeded.
Declining populations should not be framed as a problem but as a challenge. Who is to say that older people will be unproductive. Policies should be focused on creating opportunities to keep older people in the workforce.
Is this a 50-cent worker? Who knows.
Anyway, the problem is health. As the body ages, blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, a weakened immune system, loss of muscle mass, falling ATP availability, and _much_ more make the stress, physical demands, and pathogens of the workplace intolerable.
@@jonmichaelgalindo I take your point that old people suffer from more ailments but many are quite able to contribute effectively. The point is that business will need to accommodate and use these workers as the population ages.
The only people who benefit in the long run from growing populations are rich capital owners. Smaller population = cheaper housing and more of everything to go around. The dependency bump will only be an issue for a few decades until settling into a lower equilibrium (unless life expectancy rises).
It's aLL pArT oF tHe pLaN oF tHe pEdOsAtAnIsT eLiTeS oF gEoRgE SoRoS, tHeY wAnT aN eThNiC cLeAnSiNg oF tHe wEsTeRn wOrLd WiTh tHe GreAT RePLaCeMeNT
In all seriousness, that's quite a concerning issue, and you can't just force people to have children.
No, but we should encourage it as a society, but we don't anymore. Plus it is a frightening prospect of putting children into the world, when you know that AI singularity is right around the corner. Can you even say that you have a responibility to bring children into the world to further civilization, when we don't even know if it will be there when they grow up? It is a hard sell in this day and age...
You cant compere a country with an administrative region, without mentioning the difference.
I was gonna say, referring to Quebec as a country is a pretty inflammatory statement here in Canada
@@Joe-vm6ds Yeah, tell me about it, somehow nobody outside Europe sees the EU as an economic union and everyone refers to us as a COUNTRY which is so stupid as each country in Europe has it's own language, tradition, history etc, that means each country in the EU has its own identity, language and culture. Nobody refers to himself as European.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 i'm sorry to say but many people call themselves European, including myself. You can have your own language and culture, but values in most of the European country are the same.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 That is true, however the EU has become a lot more than just an "economic union", they've pushed for common EU laws, common EU military, common EU culture, common EU morality, etc.
@@adriancatalinmarin8320 There definitely are ways in which the EU acts in a way traditionally associated with single countries though. The common market is a very good example of that; it's actually more accurate to compare the EU as a whole with other countries than to do the comparison with individual member states, as that way you're effectively slicing a single economy into relatively arbitrary pieces.
Argentina grows alot in population everytime there's wars in europe because many people from there chose to go far away from problem but at the same time to a place that looks european.
I’m Welsh.
My paternal grandmother had 9 children in 14 years, 1918-1932 (the last one died last week).
My parents had 3 children 1945-1948 (the second one died shortly after birth), and me ten years later.
Of the 3 people in my generation, only 1 had children - 3 between 1972 and 1986.
Of the 3 people in the next generation, only 1 has had children - 3 between 2007 and 2011.
So my family has been keeping a constant number for 3 generations now!
Nice work! Continue this trend.
You forgot to include better half in it. 6 people had 3 children. It is a rapid decline.
Here in the Philippines, we have a fertility rate of about 2.5. Yeah, not a problem considering our country has one of the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies.
We have a very large diaspora in the western world, especially in both the US and Canada thanks to very high emigration rates in our country. So our problem is more of a how-to stop emigration type of thing and curbing teenage pregnancies.
You can prevent teenage pregnancy by letting them know about the proper use of contraceptives
Filipino Culture also encouraged people to have atleast 3 child.
And most Filipino's living abroad tends to come back to Philippines after their contract ends.
So for me Philippines will not face a population decline problem even in 2100.
The problem is all your best and educated leave, and the poor and unfortunate stay in the country
decriminalize abortion...
If your priority is no longer some form of continuation, then all is well. Once Italian peninsula people ruled the known world, now it has soft-decided to go quietly into the night. One has to question the priority that replaced all that 'going forth and multiplying/increasing'.
The job market and housing issue is probably the biggest contributor.
I am single and have above average salary. Not a lot. But at least I can have savings.
But still with my savings and salary, affording a house is hard. Providing for a family is hard if my partner is not working as well.
Solution?
Probably allow remote work so people can have loweriving cost so they can afford children.
Curious. With increased automation will the impact of a declining birth rate be mitigated? I can see a circumstance where automation leads to higher unemployment and therefore a need for some form of UBI. In such a circumstance taxing workers to fund welfare would be counterproductive, instead it would presumably be funded by corporation or wealth taxes.
Exactly. Actually paying people so they can afford they're basic needs is a good way to encourage people to have kids. Most people won't have them because of financial insecurity. Especially young people who can't even afford their own homes.
@@theblackswordsman9951 this seems to conform with the sentiments in the chat. Honestly, I am not yet convinced of the case for a UBI (as opposed to a wealth tax and better funding for welfare) but can see why it gaining traction and could be persuaded to support this type of policy.
No, because that would require us to tax the rich more which they never gave as an option
Just tax the rich more
@@theblackswordsman9951 I don't see it working though. With a basic income I'd imagine the costs would just increase until there is financial insecurity again.
Like in the netherlands there is "huur subsidie" which is basically money from the government to help pay the rent if you rent below a certain price and you don't earn too much money; however the rents have steadily increased so almost every housing option is now at the top of that subsidy cut off price. As a result the huur subsidie keeps rising slightly every year but so do the rents 😅 so in the end the money you keep in your pockets is roughly the same no matter how much money daddy goverment gives.
I’m failing to see why this is a problem when we literally have billions of ppl on this earth.
Um... maybe because this doesn't apply to third world cesspools in Africa, much of the Middle East, and certain countries from East and South Asia as well. Never thought for a second that these people who's culture is clearly, for the most part, incompatible with ours, will simply be encouraged to migrate here and essentially make up the numbers for declining Western fertility rates, did you? And eventually when they've outnumbered the parent culture in the Western country they've migrated to, will vote in numbers to change the fabric of it. You hipster trendies with your save-the-planet-by-not-having-anymore-kids vibes, will be thrown out the window. But it likely won't happen in your lifetime so you need not worry with future generations who want to be like you, who won't inherit the same libertarian freedoms that you were entitled to, because you let other more dominating cultures in to take over. So why would you care?
@@eddielong8663 don't fall into the monoculture trap. Avoid crass generalisations.
@@tentringer4065 Sweden now has one of the highest rates of sexual assault cases in the world. Of course, the left-wing cucked media will try and spin it and turn it all into a "toxic masculinity" issue and conveniently ignore race to push their own agenda. But anyone without rocks in their head can easily join the dots. That's what a country gets for being "tolerant" and welcoming to foreign illegals from the third world. Enjoy multicultural "enrichment".
@@eddielong8663 Sweden changed the legal definition of rape in 2018 to sex without consent. Unlike in many countries, prosecutors do not have to prove the use or threat of violence or coercion. So comparisons with other nations are not like with like. As for race, it is distinct from culture and background.
@@tentringer4065 Sex without consent. Right... so that essentially falls into the category of sexual assault. Same thing really. Breaking news, that one. I don't know what they're trying to prove to be honest. Same with you for bringing it up. Just seems like a convenient way to detract from the case in point. Sweden's rape statistics were on the rise long before 2018. Nothing can deter the fact that the country's statistics concerning any form of sexual assault, have mysteriously gone up and up with the rise of multiculturalism and feminism starting last century. The rise of promiscuity among women, the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, the rise of divorce, the fall of traditional marriage, the rise of gay marriage, the rise of single motherhood. It all correlates together. I understand it goes against the cute little politically correct mainstream narrative, and you can try and counter with as many useless platitudes as you want, but you're not convincing for a second.
Considering how sadistic, twisted and manipulative most humans are, why would I want to bring my child into all that?
Well, as mentioned in the video, you need enough children to support the retired population sufficiently. And if everyone subscribes to your altitude, that will become a real problem as there will be a lack of working age individuals. Going out on a limb here (and sorry if I get this wrong), you might see the people around you in a negative light, with little hope of good coming from them. So why bring children into this world? The problem with this line of reasoning is, that the population of people you consider awful will continue to rise, while individuals like you, who seem to wish for more compassion and kindness, will stagnate or shrink if they all refuse to have children. That way it would only become worse with each generation. The soultion in my eyes is to have 2-3 children and raise them to be compassionate and productive members of society. That way you can try to ensure that future generations don't have to take your gloom outlook on humanity.
Because our world is a better place to live in now then it was 50 years ago
@@somedude1502 You can claim the 'positivity' card all you want, I don't lie, most people are like this, and I am not bringing new children into the world to be abused, that being said I aim to focus on the children who already exist and to help teach them integrity and empathy, so I am not completely giving up.
Exactly, for me choosing to not have a child is the greatest act of mercy.
@@somedude1502 So you see that the world is a neverending battlefield between decent and shit people and you still decide to continue this war by bringing your children into this like little soldiers? And you naively assume that they will grow up to be what their parents want them to be? No, I will fight my own fights.
World is overpopulated.........
Less people.... More happiness.....,😊😊😊,.........
relationships, jobs, housing, and divorce settlements
Also college tuition fees is getting so gosh darn expensive
There are too many people already, declining population is a good thing by all measurable metrics except economics.
The problem is not the population increase, the problem is the unequal distribution of whealth. Fewer than 1000 people own over 50% of the world's wealth.
Some countries are willing to go to war with other nations to steal their resources ( oil , gas, minerals) ,some countries control the issuance of currency of entire nations. Some are just greedy businessman who take markets away from mon and pap shops.
The military budget of USA, CHINA and Russia can eliminate poverty on the planet. Our problem is not population, the problem is distribution of wealth. In the US $25.000 a year can provide a decent life in a rural area. In California, it cost anywhere between $25.000 to $50.000 a year to house a prisoner.
NASA budget alone can solve the homelessness issue in America
Puerto Rico gets all of the negatives of the USA plus all of the negatives of a Latin-American politics
I'd love to have a big family myself,
problem is cost of living and cost of having children,
the instability of marriage,
and even the stability of dating,
we mostly spend our 20s dating , once you're on your thirties the fertility also drops .
There was a significant unpredicted drop of fertility during the pandemic , and I think the historical trend shows us that once you enter a particular trend, there's no going up .
I've read some papers that basically predict a population of about 12 billion people by 2100 with a following downward trend for the whole world, without any indicator of it ever going up .
First it will go down way before like 2040 or earlier and second it will never ever come back upward
Declining population is a good thing. We dont need more ppl! Try to coorperate with the ~8billion we already are. Less ppl are so beneficial to our world-society!
that is not true...u r just looking at the surface of the problem. lower population is good if it is lowered equally from each age group but if its lowered from working population then ur retirement money and all the benefits of senior citizens shall diminish.
the world population isn’t declining.
Nigeria had 40 years ago 100 Millionen people, now 200 and at the end of the century it is predicted that they'll have 800 Million residents!
No decline. It's just mostly in the northern hemisphere
The shrinking has the same effects on all countries, but the reason differs massively. Most of the countries you listed in the beginning loose young population due to emmigration. Some of the long known 'old' countries shrink because of lack of babies. The only reason why Germany is now growing is because of immigration, seriously.
Imagine thinking that a ''declining'' population is a bad thing when you are extremely overpopulated.
Almost every country that has a population declining is not over populated
@@Croat955 Almost every country is overpopulated
Considering much of the planet’s environmental problems stem from overpopulation having less people wouldn’t be a bad thing. Secondly, with increased automation there is going to be less jobs for less skilled people. BI might become a necessity, and having less people would make it easier to afford. And if population shrinkage is a problem then mass immigration is not an ideal solution.
7 Billion people is already too much for Earth
By "BI" you mean the uncondtional basic income, right?
Reasons some of those countries have low fertility rates:
1. Business > Family
2. Money can buy happiness (if said person is not interested in having any children)
3. "You can't give someone the feeling of despair if they don't even exist in the first place"
Money cant buy happiness. Just look at Japan. One of the most orderly countries out there with one of the largest median incomes and inequality adjusted HDI in the world (ahead of the US). But thanks to loneliness and toxic work culture, it also has a pretty bad suicide rate and depression problem. Being poor also doesnt mean you'll be in despair. I have seen kids in undeveloped rural villages that look happier than most city kids in the first world despite barely having an education and no healthcare whatsoever
Population decline is great for the environment, for economists and the super-rich not so much.
This video didn't talk about taxing the rich, but taxing the young seems like a good solution when young people's salaries have not significantly increased.
Money isnt Everything. Stuff will still need to be produced. By guess whom.
That last statement is sarcasm right?
It's not just about rich people .how do you think a country will pay you old people if they're no young people
@someone from no where Humans won't go extinct due to economic or demography disasters. We CAN go extinct due to natural and artificial disaster though
"muh environment!"
mate who cares. The environment is always changing. If humans don't do it, some other animal will evolve to do it.
There are far too many people on the planet and we are burning resources in an unsustainable way. We need to get the population down and sort out our society to enable us to do it.
I welcome population decline with open arms. For years my country would demonize women who had lots of children, demonize people for having children while using welfare, demonize the lack of jobs or recourses due to the poor/ immigrants having lots of children. So why all of a sudden are we singing a different tune? More recourses to go around for all. If anything the pension system needs to be updated.
The one part of the income and expenditure equation that is missing is production. If we are producing more then there is more to go round, and an even bigger share if the population is decreasing. So there is a problem with this analysis as it takes no account of technological progress.
Just a thought but how about making corporations pay their far share again.
They already may 89% of the US income tax. Corporations also pay their fair share to society already not by taxes but by giving people jobs and World innovation.
I mean the real problem isn’t the pension since that will be offset by the major problem of shrinking populations: deflation
What is happening in Europe is a population adjustment based on the future needs of society and is underway in many advanced societies.
People behave like a large organism that adapts to environmental conditions to survive.
The problem is that backward societies still have unsustainable and unrealistic demographic dynamics.
Isn't a return to a more sustainable population (2-3 billion) considered a way that we can mitigate or reverse the impacts of climate change? In that case the population declines and decrease in fertility rates should be taken as a good thing.
The thing here is, the population of the globe doesn't matter.
If you check the data on food waste, you'll see that we produce enough to feed 10 billion people globally. Yet, a quarter of people starve because most of the excess food either goes into the bodies of obese people in first world countries or into the garbage.
If the globe had 3 billion people, all the corporations would align their produce in a way that creates a sort of artificial scarcity, or scarcity will happen as a natural consequence of 20% of the population having 80% resources.
Why do you think companies would help the poor when populations lower when they can create an unequal society, create more problems, device solutions, sell said solutions and make more money.
A lower population will help, but not nearly to the extent you imagine.
Spain being the least religious country in Europe is kinda funny to me. They were the ones who spread Catholicism in my Asian country.
The Catholic church in Spain decided to give full support to dictator Franco on a time when religion was shrinking in all of Europe (20s~30s). After the dictatorship was over, church's support on it kind of backfired.
They put their faith in you.
yeah they were known as the catholic monarchy during the colonial days, catholicizing all the natives of the americas and imposing inquisitions in their imperial territories. Point is that societies can shift radically as time goes on.
@@El_Psy_Kongroo_ yeah they had really healthy fertility rates when they were fascist but when they became a liberal democracy with feminism and all the other nonsense the fertility rate tanked. They’re probably better of having a religious fascist regime cause at least they’ll still exist a hundred years from now
@@alvinlin8140 You probably mean that in a 100 years "Iberian Spanish ethnicity", or whatever you wanna call it, will no longer be a majority in Spain. In that case you are probably right. However whether that is a problem we should worry about or not is something that only depends on your morals and values.
In my opinion (as a young Spaniard) the incoming collapse of the pension system is a much major problem than whatever may become the overall ethnicity of Spain in the future.
It's not a problem at all. Human beings have almost destroyed the world with over population.
Immigration is not a solution .It just means that Developed countries are just offloading their problems to developing countries just like they do with pollution , etc , but not surprising considering that TLDR News are always portraying an Anglo-Saxon view on the world even on their global channel
This is a blessing in disguise, earth was never designed to be this populated. Let things be people.
The reality is that high birth rates benefit the rich because it increases the quantity of exploitable labor while hurting the poor who are the people being exploited. I am familiar with Colombia where in the last 40 years there has been a dramatic demographic transition from high birth rates to low. During this period, the availability of young women for domestic help has dropped dramatically while the wages of domestic workers has increased just as dramatically. This has brought many young women out of poverty. Don't believe people like the authors of this video who say that low a birth rate is bad for the economy. It is only bad for the rich. For the poor it is a boom.
TLDR really needs to pay more attention to the details of the infographics they're showing. For example, in this video TLDR keeps mistakenly putting the % sign next to the birth rates in various graphics. But birth rate isn't a %. Similar things were shown in the video about Boeing and Airbus where the speaker reading from the script says "Dollars", but the chart showed the price in "British Pounds" and later same script reader said "Euros" and the chart showed the prices with "$" next to the values.
It seems like the only real problem for a declining population is state pension? Wouldn't abolishing state pension, forcing people to save up their own private pension, be a potential solution for this? The world's population won't keep growing forever, so immigration from high fertility rate countries to low fertility rate countries won't always be a solution.
Abolishing state pensions is a good way to increase elder poverty rates. While immigration is a solution, we should use it, and hopefully find a different one later.
Superannuation is far too intelligent and sensible a policy, far better to keep taxing the young to pay for the old, thus lowering birth rates, thus requiring higher taxes, and so on and ride that self perpetuating cycle all the way to the floor and the disintegration of society.
And state provided healthcare, since older people use more resources. We should abolish that as well.
Oh and boring things like "reforms in democratic society"? Yeah, they also get fucked, since large generation will vote for politicians that cater to them, outvoting small generations, and staying in power for much longer, even if they no longer understand the challenges of today.
Unfortunately not, getting rid of old age pensions gust leads to old age poor or them never leaving the workforce potentially costing young workers even more.
A life annuity (private pension for life) funded by one's own mando savings of 15% per pay cheque til 55 could work.
We don't have this kind of problem in my country. Since our best export product is Human Labor.
Relatable...😂😂We have a huge diaspora
Philippines? Indian? or Vietnamese?
Was searching for these comments
Unfortunately if history holds true your country will have this issue eventually when it becomes as developed as the country's whith declining birth rates are.
@@c.j.3404 Nah man. We like to send our best people to more develop countries.
huh, women who are educated think having children is a raw deal... hint: it's not just that they love having careers so much.
Honestly, there’s a very good chance that life extension technology will solve this problem entirely. It won’t be long before the average human gains more than 1 year of increased life expectancy through improved healthcare per year that goes by, something called ‘longevity escape velocity’. Once this happens, there will be no physical health reason to retire and people will probably want to carry on working to support themselves. Also, if people are staying healthier for longer, the short term effect is much less strain on healthcare.
The health span is not increasing. The people might live longer in average, but they are vegetating the last years in care homes.
Increasing the life span is just going to strengthen the problem as there are more people to be supported.
Advancement in medicine leads only to more unhealthy people.
perhaps but keep in mind that
A.this technology needs to be widely distributed enough to the point where many have access to it at an affordable price
B.if people have the money to buy this then they will most likely simply retire early since they have more money to support themselves meaning that now the old retired population actually increases instead of decreases since more people can retire.
now the governments of countries could just increase the retirement age but that still would not change the fact that less babies are being born to replace the older and the aging population
while i think the idea is interesting i dont think its a surefire stop to this problem
*As the economy crisis keep rising one* need to have different stream of* income*, *one need to have a diversified* *portfolio in order to survive*
I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price
That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Charles Schwab
Yeah My first Investment with Mr Charles Schwab me profits of over $24,320 US dollars and ever since then he has Been delivering
He's obviously the best I invested 2000USD with him and in 9 days I made a profit of 9101USD
I tried trading on my own but it only left chasing shadows
My country faces this problem --- awareness is increasing. What to do? Nothing. Just let things play out naturally -- most of us will end up working until we die
Why the panic about a falling population. It will be great when the population falls. Cheaper housing, plenty of food, less traffic, less pollution, more space, the environment will recover etc etc.
And babies take far more looking after than older people, so no big deal
Because you end up with a society where you have very few young working people to support a very large population of retired old people. Economic collapse is likely to occur before birthrates level off at replacement level. Different countries are addressing it differently. Singapore is literally paying couples to have children, but even that isn't working, so they have resorted to mass immigration. Japan has predicted their population will level off at 80 million, but have no idea if their economy will survive the several decades it will take for their birth rates to level off at replacement level.
A decline in economy and a disruption increased strain on younger people isn't a good thing.
2 things can be very effective for solving this problem :
1. Governments must try to make "raising children" less expensive, less time consuming. (this doesn't work alone itself)
2. If you can make people think that "Life is not for getting pleasure and fun all the time. Family relations and raising a new generation is more important." then people will be more willing to have kids. For decades, movie makers, mucisians and others who are idolised by the people are advicing them "Living their lives for themselves. Seeking personal pleasure and fun etc." Some religions are very effective for solving this problem but most of the "modernist people" see those religions as "backwardism".
I agree with this
To your second point, Why should I spend my time and money raising expensive kids because politicians want a bigger tax base? All while they don't do jack for me or regulate housing prices to make it affordable.
@@leonidas14775 baby = money lol
@@leonidas14775
Housing is just as important and a human right, if not more than healthcare. So why isnt there a National Housing Service that provides each family with a home free of charge? Homebuilders can either be contractors paid by the govt per home built, or be civil servants that build homes. Realtors can be the nurses or receptionists in this analogy.
And I don't mean only to those who cannot afford--i mean everyone. We (UK, et al) don't just provide healthcare to the poor, we provide it to all.
@@leonidas14775 We have reasons to have kids but nobody can force you to accept those reasons. Of course "Having kids for creating a bigger tax base." is not a convincing reason for the people. People need religious, philosophical or ideological or emotional... more powerful reasons.
Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates on earth, about 1.1 per woman, yet its population is among the fastest-growing in the east and southeast Asia. Maybe skilled immigration can help stem the population decline, particularly for countries like Japan, that shrinks by over 400K every year