Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

So....this terrible declining population idea.


Recommended Posts

What's so terrible about a declining population?

AFAICS it's because governments can't then spend the next generation's money and would have to run the finances properly while explaining this to people.

 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55526450

Alarm as South Korea sees more deaths than births

Published
6 hours ago
Share
Caregiver with babyIMAGE COPYRIGHTAFP
image captionThe number of babies born in 2020 has fallen drastically

South Korea recorded more deaths than births in 2020 for the first time ever, raising fresh alarm in the country which already has the world's lowest birth rate.

Only 275,800 babies were born last year, down 10% from 2019. Around 307,764 people died.

The figures prompted the interior ministry to call for "fundamental changes" to its policies.

A declining population puts immense strain on a country.

Apart from increased pressure on public spending as demand for healthcare systems and pensions rise, a declining youth population also leads to labour shortages that have a direct impact on the economy.

Elderly womanIMAGE COPYRIGHTAFP
image captionAn aging population puts massive pressure on a country

Last month, President Moon Jae-in launched several policies aimed at addressing the low birth rate, including cash incentives for families.

Under the scheme, from 2022, every child born will receive a cash bonus of 2 million won ($1,850; £1,350) to help cover prenatal expenses, on top of a monthly payout of 300,000 won handed out until the baby turns one. The incentive will increase to 500,000 won every month from 2025.

line

What's behind South Korea's falling birth rate?

Julie Yoon, BBC Korean

South Korean school childrenIMAGE COPYRIGHTEPA
image captionSouth Korea's employment policies are not conducive to women who want to have children

Largely, it's because in South Korea, women struggle to achieve a balance between work and other life demands.

Hyun-yu Kim is one of them. The oldest of four, she dreamed of having a big family of her own. But faced with conditions that are not family friendly in South Korea, she is reconsidering her plans to have children.

She recently accepted a new job and had felt anxious about taking time off for maternity leave. "People tell me that it's safer to build my career first," she told the BBC.

Soaring real estate prices are another major issue. Ms Kim points out that rapidly rising property prices also discourage young couples.

"In order to have children, you need to have your own home. But this has become an impossible dream in Korea."

She is also unconvinced by the incentives being offered by the government.

"It's expensive to raise a child. The government providing an extra couple hundred thousand won won't solve our problems."

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's problem is someone else's opportunity. The problem for the rulers is a lack of cheap labour and increasing people power. The opportunity is for the wrong people. The plebs and especially the lower middle classes.

Edit to add you can add lower property prices to both opportunities and problems.

Edited by Yadda yadda yadda
Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you start to discuss this you run square into the "do we have infinite resources?" question.

Now obviously the real answer is "no" but adherents to infinite growth like to point to Malthus and how his claims never materialised. There's something in that but margins get tighter and the room for maneuver lessens and eventually systems of delivery become inherently critical and failures catastrophic.

The planet and humanity would largely be better off with a lower sustainable population. However, in reality that's not achievable and we only find balance through war, famine or pestilence. The latter winning by a head at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dgul said:

You'd have thought that a stable population would be a reasonable goal.

But someone seems to have said somewhere at some time that a constantly growing population by some percentage is necessary*.

It's all a bit weird.

[* Don Brash, New Zealand, 1989, 2%.  Or am I getting confused?]

Yes, I believe 2% is the rate at which humans are dug out of the ground and this should be maintained as best as possible. But in the UK, that has a 1% error margin, which if over or undershot requires all the mummies and daddies to write to the ONS to explain themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The black death killed a shed-load of our ancestors; this was clearly pretty bad when a substantial proportion of your family was dying around you, but (and its a big but) when the black death had passed away, the poor did very well for themselves as labour was in short supply and hence rose in value.

The slave masters in Westminster would not want the value of our labour to go up as it would lead to all manner of things from their point of view. It is the same reason they like to import loads of cheap European labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

The black death killed a shed-load of our ancestors; this was clearly pretty bad when a substantial proportion of your family was dying around you, but (and its a big but) when the black death had passed away, the poor did very well for themselves as labour was in short supply and hence rose in value.

 

I've seen Chaucer suggested as somebody who was able to rise rapidly through the civil service of the day in part due to mere survival.

Edited by eight
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

A falling population means:

  • Lower demand for housing - genuinely affordable housing
  • Less pollution - health and green issues
  • Less traffic - quality of life
  • Less consumption - green
  • Increased wage inflation over asset inflation - more opportunity for the young
  • Less construction and demolition of unwanted buildings - more room for nature
  • Less demand for food - less intensive agriculture and fishing
  • Less CO2 outputs - reduce global warming and sea level rise

It's just awful isn't it? ;)

For banks, it is. And hence governments, the two are almost synonymous in most countries now. 

Even China didn't maintain their one-child policy, presumably they couldn't think of a good way to deal with the demographic timebomb it generates and didn't want immigration.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

A falling population means:

  • Lower demand for housing - genuinely affordable housing
  • Less pollution - health and green issues
  • Less traffic - quality of life
  • Less consumption - green
  • Increased wage inflation over asset inflation - more opportunity for the young
  • Less construction and demolition of unwanted buildings - more room for nature
  • Less demand for food - less intensive agriculture and fishing
  • Less CO2 outputs - reduce global warming and sea level rise

It's just awful isn't it? ;)

More space - less close contact with people - less stress, irritation, daily conflict, rage - less mental illness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

The black death killed a shed-load of our ancestors; this was clearly pretty bad when a substantial proportion of your family was dying around you, but (and its a big but) when the black death had passed away, the poor did very well for themselves as labour was in short supply and hence rose in value.

The slave masters in Westminster would not want the value of our labour to go up as it would lead to all manner of things from their point of view. It is the same reason they like to import loads of cheap European labour.

This is spot on and part of the globalists policy. Government policy will always ensure a steady stream of worker ants to feed their "system"; ie child benefit, marriage allowances etc. It is pretty obvious that a less competitive labour market leads to opportunity and rising wages. The elite are not part of the labour market but need a stream of global capital/production to keep sweating their assets 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Even China didn't maintain their one-child policy, presumably they couldn't think of a good way to deal with the demographic timebomb it generates and didn't want immigration.

 

The chinese one-child population effectively meant that each new generation halved in number. That is extreme..

However if each woman had an average of about 1.9 kids population levels would go down gradually...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jazztraveller said:

More space - less close contact with people - less stress, irritation, daily conflict, rage - less mental illness.

Yes.

I get on well with my neighbours but would get on less well with them if our houses were terraced so that we were all disturbing each other with noise travelling through party walls.

Space and lack of unwanted disturbance improves everyone's mental health. 

High density housing worsens it.

I had a ride back with a recovery driver after my brake calliper locked on one time.  He was the true face of the housing crisis as despite working full time he could only afford substandard housing for his family.  He was a nice guy but out of character said with some passion "I hate my neighbour"; not as far as I could gather through any personal dispute but because they made so much noise it was affecting his family.

If the houses had been detached and spaced out he would have been fine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Great Guy said:

The chinese one-child population effectively meant that each new generation halved in number. That is extreme..

However if each woman had an average of about 1.9 kids population levels would go down gradually...

You don't however need central control of any of this.

Provide people with a decent standard of living and welfare system so that they don't require children to look after them in their old age and the population will gently decline as in Japan and South Korea as people overall have fewer children and later in life.

You also of course need to halt immigration or you get population replacement via a fast breeding third world underclass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so terrible about a declining population?

 

It's totally unworkable- how are the banks expected to get their principal and interest paid back without an ever expanding population producing infinite growth! 

So, yeah- THEM, again. 

Edited by Carl Fimble
Adding the OPs question at the top
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bornagain said:

The black death killed a shed-load of our ancestors; this was clearly pretty bad when a substantial proportion of your family was dying around you, but (and its a big but) when the black death had passed away, the poor did very well for themselves as labour was in short supply and hence rose in value.

The slave masters in Westminster would not want the value of our labour to go up as it would lead to all manner of things from their point of view. It is the same reason they like to import loads of cheap European labour.

IIRC the Black Death effectively ended feudalism - a system that had lasted for centuries. TPTB do not want falling populations because it gives leverage to talented individuals who can subvert the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern industrial capitalism is largely built on the premise there will be more consumers tomorrow than today. Global birth rates peaked in the 1960s and have been declining every decade up to 2020. This has meant recent human population growth has largely relied on extending life expectancy.
 

The problem for industrialised capitalist societies is that their economy virtually requires women to defer having children until after their peak fertility years. In a nut shell that means more older parents having fewer kids. We have now passed an inflection point in every part of the globe apart from sub Saharan Africa where it is going to be increasingly difficult for the population to grow because there are simply too few young people in their peak fertility years having children. That said civilisations have survived not only stagnant population levels but even huge demographic shocks such as the Black Death.

Maybe the simple answer is to give all those dancing robots credit cards and to send them shopping.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...