Nordic countries need more babies to fund their system

[UglyCasanova]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

 

[realibrad]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

This is part of the reason why the population is not expected to go above around 10 billion. As wealth increases, people tend to have less children. It does mean that some things will need to be reworked. They are not the only country to have systems built upon expected future population growth.

 

[ivwshane]

How do you think capitalism works? In fact I can't think of a single economic system that doesn't require "new blood" in order to continue.

 

[Atreus21]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

They think they got it bad. Try Japan.

 

[Atreus21]

How do you think capitalism works? In fact I can't think of a single economic system that doesn't require "new blood" in order to continue.

Communism, certainly. Lots and lots of blood.

Interesting also that the nordic countries are commonly held up by the left as examples of socialism done right. Now when there are problems we blame capitalism.

 

[Jaskalas]

The old "we can't pay for it" trope.

• Personal Income in this country is $15.5 trillion.
• United States Budget is currently $4 trillion.
• Basic Income would spend $3.8 trillion.

We can do a lot with what we have.

 

[realibrad]

How do you think capitalism works? In fact I can't think of a single economic system that doesn't require "new blood" in order to continue.

How does capitalism require new people into the system? I can see how it would maximize profits, but, not how its inherently needed for it to work as a system.

 

[WelshBloke]

Communism, certainly. Lots and lots of blood.

Interesting also that the nordic countries are commonly held up by the left as examples of socialism done right. Now when there are problems we blame capitalism.

The Nordic countries are in no way not capitalist economies.

 

[fskimospy]

Literally every country on earth structures its finances in a way that depends on population growth. They do that because... well... our population has always grown. I mean how catastrophically stupid would we have had to be to do otherwise? When tax bases change, the way you make policy and the way you tax people changes. This should be obvious.

This thread makes zero logical sense as an attack on the welfare state. Did you think this through?

 

[pauldun170]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

​

​

​

​

Gonna have to pull the adult card and respond....​

In Norway, Finland and Iceland, birth rates dropped to historic lows in 2017, with 1.49 to 1.71 children born per woman. Just a few years earlier, their birth rates hovered close to the 2.1 level required for their populations to remain stable.

Total Fertility Rate
Total fertility rate (per woman)
Total fertility rate (TFR) in simple terms refers to total number of children born or likely to be born to a woman in her life time if she were subject to the prevailing rate of age-specific fertility in the population. TFR of about 2.1 children per woman is called Replacement-level fertility (UN, Population Division). This value represents the average number of children a woman would need to have to reproduce herself by bearing a daughter who survives to childbearing age. If replacement level fertility is sustained over a sufficiently long period, each generation will exactly replace itself without any need for the country to balance the population by international migration.

 

[fskimospy]

Communism, certainly. Lots and lots of blood.

Interesting also that the nordic countries are commonly held up by the left as examples of socialism done right. Now when there are problems we blame capitalism.

He did not blame capitalism.

It's interesting to see how the Nordic countries are back to being 'socialist' again though, haha. Just the other day there was a thread about how well they are doing but according to conservatives then it was because they were so capitalist. lol. I even called that this!

It’s the same old dance that conservatives always do. When countries that spend more than us on government fail it’s because the socialized parts of their country failed. When countries that spend more than is succeed it’s because capitalism is so great.

 

[hal2kilo]

Literally every country on earth structures its finances in a way that depends on population growth. They do that because... well... our population has always grown. I mean how catastrophically stupid would we have had to be to do otherwise? When tax bases change, the way you make policy and the way you tax people changes. This should be obvious.

This thread makes zero logical sense as an attack on the welfare state. Did you think this through?

posting in a concerned person's thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread makes zero logical sense as an attack on the welfare state. Did you think this through?

When has he ever?

 

[zinfamous]

This is why immigration is essential to any healthy modern economy. I'm glad you agree, OP.

 

[theeedude]

You think private retirements are going to do great if population is shrinking?

 

[Viper1j]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

Wonder if they'll start offering hot sex tours..

 

[Jhhnn]

If anything, shrinking populations will only increase the negative effects of wealth concentration inherent to poorly regulated capitalism. It's not an issue of how much wealth & how much liquidity there is but rather of distribution.

It's perfectly clear that greed at the top would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

 

[pmv]

Communism, certainly. Lots and lots of blood.

Funny you mention that. Eastern Europe's population is aging rapidly because the birth-rate plummeted after the end of communism. The communist regimes provided a lot of support for families. When the regimes collapsed that went away and the birth-rate collapsed with it.

Most of Europe has an aging population and below-replacement birthrate. The UK, Ireland, and France are the only real exceptions. I don't really know what the general cause of this is, apart from the particular case of the end of communism in the East.

Globally population growth has mostly slowed or stopped entirely as countries get a bit wealthier, but the huge exception is Africa, where countries like Nigeria continue to grow rapidly despite increasing wealth. I don't really get what the reason for that is, either.

It seems kind of appropriate, given that humans emerged from Africa in the first place, that it looks as if the main engine of increasing global population will be Africa.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25869838

 

[fskimospy]

Funny you mention that. Eastern Europe's population is aging rapidly because the birth-rate plummeted after the end of communism. The communist regimes provided a lot of support for families. When the regimes collapsed that went away and the birth-rate collapsed with it.

Most of Europe has an aging population and below-replacement birthrate. The UK, Ireland, and France are the only real exceptions. I don't really know what the general cause of this is, apart from the particular case of the end of communism in the East.

Globally population growth has mostly slowed or stopped entirely as countries get a bit wealthier, but the huge exception is Africa, where countries like Nigeria continue to grow rapidly despite increasing wealth. I don't really get what the reason for that is, either.

One big reason is that in developed countries the cost of child care has become prohibitively expensive thanks to Baumol's cost disease. While most things society does become more efficient over time there's been basically no productivity growth when it comes to taking care of kids. That makes it become more expensive over time relative to everything else. The more expensive it is to have a kid, the fewer kids we get.

 

[Jhhnn]

One big reason is that in developed countries the cost of child care has become prohibitively expensive thanks to Baumol's cost disease. While most things society does become more efficient over time there's been basically no productivity growth when it comes to taking care of kids. That makes it become more expensive over time relative to everything else. The more expensive it is to have a kid, the fewer kids we get.

Robot child care!

 

[mect]

One big reason is that in developed countries the cost of child care has become prohibitively expensive thanks to Baumol's cost disease. While most things society does become more efficient over time there's been basically no productivity growth when it comes to taking care of kids. That makes it become more expensive over time relative to everything else. The more expensive it is to have a kid, the fewer kids we get.

I think you need to replace cost of childcare with opportunity cost of childcare. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense why the poor are the ones having the most children in developed countries.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you need to replace cost of childcare with opportunity cost of childcare. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense why the poor are the ones having the most children in developed countries.

No, definitely meant the cost. It's true that in general rich people have fewer children than poor people due in part to opportunity costs but that has changed in recent years due to increasing inequality and increasing cost of child care. Basically poor people take care of their kids themselves or use family members, middle class people have fewer kids because they can't afford child care anymore, and rich people have more kids because they can.

https://qz.com/1125805/the-reason-the-richest-women-in-the-us-are-the-ones-having-the-most-kids/

 

[pmv]

Robot child care!

Robot-children?

 

[brycejones]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

Immigration is the answer.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is part of the reason why the population is not expected to go above around 10 billion. As wealth increases, people tend to have less children. It does mean that some things will need to be reworked. They are not the only country to have systems built upon expected future population growth.

Do you honestly think the majority of South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East will ever get to that point?