I think the childless should be taxed

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would we need that when the EU had already overall pop gains (to a big part because of immigration) by 2005?

That's only sustainable in the short term. In the long term you need sufficient immigration to replace those who aren't being born. Say your birthrate is 1.4, that means you need the equivalent immigration of half your native birthrate in order to sustain your population long term.

When you do this, Europe has a shortfall of 11 million people every year.

Right now, the death rates haven't yet caught up with the birth rates, but when they do, you'll see the entire EU go the way of Germany, and Italy, which just flipped over this year.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not?

You'll have too few workers supporting too many old people.

Something has to give, either the socialist entitlements will give, or the workers will revolt under crushing taxation levels.

At 1.4, it's a constant downward spiral. Each successive generation will only be 2/3rds the size of the previous one.

That is why inverted pyramids long term can't be sustained without societal collapse.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You'll have too few workers supporting too many old people.

Something has to give, either the socialist entitlements will give, or the workers will revolt under crushing taxation levels.

At 1.4, it's a constant downward spiral. Each successive generation will only be 2/3rds the size of the previous one.

That is why inverted pyramids long term can't be sustained without societal collapse.

Market economies will collapse for sure, but the current population decline is due to a population boom. Those boomers are now passing working age. Steady population decline shouldn't be a problem.

[Aeson]

Yes... what we need is people choosing parenthood for the money. That's how you get good parents...

[Ben Kenobi]

Market economies will collapse for sure, but the current population decline is due to a population boom. Those boomers are now passing working age. Steady population decline shouldn't be a problem.

I'd agree with you if the birthrates were 2.1, but the problem is that it's much lower then 2.1

The birthrate is 1.4 in many places in Europe. That means you won't get a stable population, but you will lose 1/3rd of your population every 20 years, once the baby boom is finished.

All the socialist entitlements in Europe will be finished at that point. Guaranteed.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's only sustainable in the short term. In the long term you need sufficient immigration to replace those who aren't being born. Say your birthrate is 1.4, that means you need the equivalent immigration of half your native birthrate in order to sustain your population long term.

When you do this, Europe has a shortfall of 11 million people every year.

Right now, the death rates haven't yet caught up with the birth rates, but when they do, you'll see the entire EU go the way of Germany, and Italy, which just flipped over this year.

You mean fertility rate, which is not the same as birth rate afaik. But yes, it's even 1.3 in 2006 IIRC. But if you speak long term, it surely depends if it remains that low or not, and as posted, the first quarter 2007 seems to indicate that it doesn't. If that forms into a stable rise and if so how far is too early to tell now, but it shows that more births aren't out of reach.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, yes fertility rate is what I meant.

I am assuming that they will stay low, which may or may not be the case.

You mean fertility rate, which is not the same as birth rate afaik. But yes, it's even 1.3 in 2006 IIRC. But if you speak long term, it surely depends if it remains that low or not, and as posted, the first quarter 2007 seems to indicate that it doesn't. If that forms into a stable rise and if so how far is too early to tell now, but it shows that more births aren't out of reach.

The gap from 1.3 to 2.1 is huge, no one's yet recovered that much. Even if you increased fertility 10 percent every 5 years, it would still take over 30 years to reverse these changes.

[BeBMan]

nm

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The birthrate is 1.4 in many places in Europe. That means you won't get a stable population, but you will lose 1/3rd of your population every 20 years, once the baby boom is finished.

So in 60 years the population will be zero? I call you on that.

[BeBMan]

Just had a look into Wiki which says indeed 1.4 for 2006, whatever. Yes it's a huge gap even with 1.4.

[snoopy369]

Year 0: 1
Year 20: 0.7
Year 40: 0.49
Year 60: 0.34
Year 80: 0.23
...
This is simple math...

[Kidlicious]

Oops... I still call though

[Kidlicious]

Japan's population is estimated at around 127.3 million... Japan's population is expected to drop to 100 million by 2050 and to 64 million by 2100.

- wiki

That's not 1/3 every twenty years. It's about half that. And Japans TFR is less than 1.4

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not 1/3 every twenty years. It's about half that. And Japans TFR is less than 1.4

They are spreading TFR out over 40 years, so that's a conservative estimate.

Average age between parents and children is quite a bit less then 40.

[Lancer]

Europe should allow 10 million young, catholic, hard working Philippine people in. They don't blow stuff up, they're family oriented,(don't get in trouble) pay their taxes and they make kids and need the work.

The US should do the same, starting with my wife's cousin.