I think we need to ask ourselves why some of those things are the case.

Why are the same jobs requiring higher levels of education now than they did in the past? If you've worked these jobs you know they don't require anything past a highschool education.

Why is housing seen as something that must constantly increase in value? It doesn't, we've been through housing bubbles but people still cling to this belief and continue to pump air into the bubbles with speculation based on it. If you've owned a home you know that it is a constant sink for money just to maintain its existing state let alone what it costs to upgrade it to modern standards as it ages.

What is driving people away from the sectors you mentioned? Is it only lack of pay? Why are we not funding these sectors when they are so essential to the functioning of our society? Where is the existing funding going, specifically whose pockets does it wind up in?

Why don't employers offer higher wages? Are they really being greedy or are their profits going to something else like rent or other business costs?

I don't think this is entirely to be laid at the feet of the richest members of society. Yes they protect their own interests but all of us are responsible for ensuring that our communities continue to function and improve. We've neglected that responsibility, we've all collectively failed. We all have to work together to fix this, blaming one group or the other will solve nothing.

"Why are we not funding these sectors when they are so essential to the functioning of our society? Where is the existing funding going, specifically whose pockets does it wind up in?"

Because there is no capitalist imperative to keep people alive. If investors and landowners can't make any money producing food, then no food will be produced beyond that which is needed to feed the investors and landowners.

> There are already endless reports of there being insufficient workers for agricultural jobs, nursing, teachers, etc. Wages haven't risen to meet the demand. They've remained stagnant or dropped in the long term. Meanwhile, those at the top are richer than ever.

Who do you think is responsible for those reports? It's employers who have enough labor for now, but foresee a more competitive labor market in the future & don't want to have to raise wages.

> People are already getting paid more being unemployed. Employers are trying to get people to work for them again while offering them less than unemployment pays. They're not even trying to compete because they know people are going to come desperately crawling back.

People don't eternally just walk around in blind terror of being unemployed, irrespective of the labor market. If the labor market gets tight, economics and history indicate that wages will adjust.

You are thinking very short term and in a very narrow range of conditions around our current economic situation.

We have never seen economic conditions remotely close to what we would see if the population were actually shrinking.

It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries currently have declining populations, as does Japan, some due to ageing and a drop in fertility and some due to that plus emigration. Economically and socially they've not entered into the death spiral some people seem to think will happen and are actually doing alright. Countries with declining populations due to war, economic collapse etc. are a different matter but in those cases the decline in population is a symptom not a cause. The transition to a shrinking world population will happen gradually over a period of decades and at different times in different areas of the works giving us plenty of time to for economic and social structures to adapt to deal with it. If it were to happen over night we would be in trouble but it won't.

It's a question of degree. I think the article is kinda hand-wringy, but not incorrect in the attention they're giving to orders of magnitude. You've got to remember that if a country like Spain halves in population, that's a colossal shift from A to B, to the extent that each decade will feel like a fairly major leap on its own. I don't think it'll be a death spiral, but it'll definitely absorb resources that otherwise could be directed to advancements, rather than preventing retrenchments. And that's assuming the rate of change doesn't cause nonlinear effects of its own.

Also, if Spain halves, it may well be that other countries shrink even further. You've also got to wonder about the distribution of old folk: some countries will end up with far more extreme distributions than others, but what I suspect we'll find is that, just as there's a quality of life level above which the reproduction rate decreases, there'll be a population level below which the quality of life decreases, so it'll self-correct.

We haven't even seen this scenario play out yet. I'm from the region and I don't think it will turn into some Fallout-type scenario, but I think it will definitely impact the well-being of all citizens in these countries, some 20-30 years from now. It's hard to say yet if/how these countries will recover.

I live in Croatia. Its population has been shrinking since 1991. Almost 30 years of unchecked population decline and it's still not an apocalyptic hellhole.

In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle.

The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers.

Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".

Those aren't related. I'm from Romania, which has:

1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia.

And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones.

But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had?

I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"?

A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.

> What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had?

Old people retire, opening up jobs for younger workers. Old people die, freeing up housing stock and capital and tax money. And these will happen long before Croatia or Romania achiever maximum productivity. There's plenty of fat left to be trimmed.

As long as the sustained rate of youth emigration is below the mortality rate -- or marginally higher while the country continues to develop -- conditions should improve for working age people (ignoring the chaos of politics).

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your implication or just not thinking this through. Could you elaborate on some of the negatives?

I’m also from Croatia...we actually had population growth in early nineties and we are losing more people to emigration rather than natural decline. It’s myopic to think that population decline doesn’t harm us. It puts rural areas in vicious cycle of losing population -> smaller economic base -> losing population due to no economic opportunities. Also cohort of women able to give birth declines even faster thus preventing any future recovery.

I live in a small town that is almost 1700 years old. Something is very wrong if we are unable to maintain or grow our population while living in unprecedented luxury and wealth compared to historical norms.

We're unable to grow our population largely because of that unprecedented wealth. Children are no longer seen as an insurance policy, and young people are better educated, choosier about their partners, and more likely to utilize birth control.

I agree that it is sad that rural areas continue to die out -- I live in an island, so I feel this keenly -- but objectively, is that such a bad thing?

Communities don't have an innate right to exist in perpetuity, and it would be an unsustainable resource nightmare if we tried to keep them all alive.

After all, it's because of rural flight that we have huge tracts of natural parks like Velebit. That's a resource that enriches the commons, even if it came at the cost of some individual welfare. It's also vastly better for the planet.

But I feel I'm missing something. What are some more of the downsides?

We have a good enough understanding of capitalism to know that the average person will not benefit from a shrinking labour pool. You have no clue just how devastating a shrinking population would be to an economy where the real average wage hasn't increased in 40 year.

The economy in Britain improved after the black death wiped out half the population.

The black death didn't discriminate and wiped out people of all social statuses equally. It upset power balances rapidly.

Barring absolute chaos, people can generally plan for years and decades from now. Declining population is something we all know is coming. Those with wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Those born into wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Japan is always mentioned as the prime example of declining population in these threads, and while the population is declining and demand for labor is increasing, wages are not rising but poverty is. Maybe it'll change 10 or 20 years from now, but the trend is downwards for the average person.

That's true but I think which bit of the population remains matters.

The demographic impact of a plague is pretty much the exact opposite of economic flight. In a plague the fittest and healthiest survive and are unencumbered by the elderly and unfit, but in a demographic flight the fittest and healthiest leave. Similarly in a birth rate collapse the demographics shift towards the elderly and away from the young and fit.

That was under feudalism, not capitalism.

But neither the Northern European nor Japanese models can cope with negative real growth in consumption. Nor negative real growth in savings.

There is a fundamental issue in capitalism that there must always be growth. Without growth, the entire concept of investment breaks down and the business cycle cannot continue. You could totally replace it with something that isn't capitalism, but that's not a small endeavor and won't happen without massive conflict.

Our current reality is that if the population shrinks significantly, there is a good likelihood that will happen.

> There are already endless reports of there being insufficient workers for agricultural jobs, nursing, teachers, etc. Wages haven't risen to meet the demand. They've remained stagnant or dropped in the long term. Meanwhile, those at the top are richer than ever.

Insufficient/shrinking supply of a good, but prices going down instead of up? What economics are in play here?

Inelastic demand and cartel behavior. People require jobs to survive; survival is an inelastic good; businesses know this; they work together to suppress wages to as close to subsistence level as possible.