In the abstract, I think the national economy would be perfectly fine with a declining population. Growth does not necessarily require a growing population — especially with robots and AI systems starting to have an impact.
The big problem seems to be tax revenue. Lots and lots of older people collecting Social Security and Medicare. That money has to come out of the paychecks of younger people, and if the ration of Young-to-Old is too skewed, then it’s a problem.
I’m not sure how, but we need to revisit the concept of government taking care of retirement for people. Sure, if you have paid in for decades, you deserve what was promised. I think it would be a ripoff if the plug suddenly got pulled. But long term, for younger workers, a different system needs to be set up.
I see “retirement” and “tax revenue” being the real problems, not “population”.
No reason to have kids if you can collect Social Security when you get old.
If you want taxes then tax the robot workers.
Warning—if the robots decide to have a tax revolt they might burn every human at the stake.
Lol.
Big government is the original ponzi scheme. That is the only reason a declining population scares them.
“national economy would be perfectly fine with a declining population”
Social Security is designed and predicated on a constantly increasing number of contributors. And Congress doesn’t have the guts to acknowledge it and their part in creating the problem.
I’m 82. I will have to live well over 100 to receive back everything I paid in for 67 years. And that despite the fact that when I started paying in there was no medicare. There was no Part C or Part D. Congress has constantly expanded the benefits. It is pegged to inflation such that it drives inflation as much as following inflation.
Only a few will acknowledge the Social Security problem of demographic decline. Immigration was the only positive of the Social Security System and many here on FR want to cut that off.