For John, BLUF: Demography is destiny. More important, when comparing costs, look at the 3rd and 4th order effects. Nothing to see here; just move along.
The International New York Times has an article looking at who pays what when it comes to birth control. This item was sparked by some assertions when the Hobby Lobby Case was heard by the US Supreme Court. The article, by Austin Frakt, a health economist with several governmental and academic affiliations, is here. The headline is "Does Birth Control Coverage Pay for Itself? Maybe Not".
Missing in the discussion is the cost of not producing enough offspring to sustain the population. If we find ourselves with a decreasing population in the out years we will not be able to sustain some of the Government services we now think of as normal.
Here is the link to a blog within the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, where Mr Daniel Hannan tells us "Europe is dying, says France's leading demographer, and Britain would be better off with the Anglosphere". Here is an extract.
It's important to understand that this decline is not a temporary blip. Although the euro crisis has accelerated Europe's slide, the underlying problem is demographic. Put simply, fewer and fewer youngsters are supporting more and more retirees. Europe's working age population peaked in 2012 at 308 million, and will fall to 265 million by 2060. The ratio of pensioners to workers will, according to The Economist, rise from 28 per cent to 58 per cent – and even these statistics assume the arrival of a million immigrants every year.Just as there are "breeders", there are "free loaders". However, if there are too many free loaders the free loading will stop and suffering will ensue. No woman should be forced or coerced into having children, although Governments should be free to offer economic incentives to have children. But, decisions have consequences, both individually and collectively.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
Governments can't offer incentives, but men can.
Man up. Wait. Only woman can demand that from men, not the government.
"Missing in the discussion is the cost of not producing enough offspring to sustain the population."
It should be noted that people seem to be fixed on the notion that only a population net growth can be good. That is, there is no context in which a declining population is good. Seems to me about as problematic as "housing prices will always rise".
Old people can't take care of themselves.
On the hand we can't treat humanity as a plan ponzi scheme.
I agree that there needs to be a ventilation of the issue. I think of it in terms of if there is a working population base that can sustain those who are retired or disabled in some way or young or staying home to take care of children or just no longer looking for work.
If there is a desire on the part of the People to reduce the population, there should be a plan. A plan that is sustainable. A precipitous drop of population is not a good thing.
And, it needs to include a policy on immigration.
Or we could wait around for 100 years, which will be after population has peaked and started back down.
Regards — Cliff
I think it will peak sooner.
Why?
Without a base population, who will care or check up on the elderly. People won't live long, with some assistance/care.
People (on average) will pass away, if no one intervenes to help.
Post a Comment