Ageing population

[Dona Ferentes]

ageing population - that's what the thread's about, by the way; not brainfarts


The population decline has led to the closure of essential services such as schools, pharmacies, and traditional cafés, which were once the social and economic hubs of these communities. This further accelerates the abandonment of villages as they become less livable.

The low fertility rate (currently around 1.41 children per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1) means that fewer new births are occurring across the country, leading to an overall population decline. This is even more pronounced in rural areas, which also experience out-migration of younger, reproductive-aged individuals.

A consistently low birth rate means there are fewer young people to replace the aging population, perpetuating the cycle of depopulation. This makes it difficult for rural communities to sustain themselves demographically in the long run.

An aging population with fewer young individuals puts a strain on public services designed for families and children, such as schools, while simultaneously increasing demand for healthcare and elder care services.

Greece Offers €10,000 Relocation Incentive for Evros - GreekReporter.com

Greece has announced a new financial incentive program aimed at encouraging citizens to permanently relocate to the Evros region.

greekreporter.com

 

[joeno]

I

and for longer
View attachment 200066
.
from the article .... Using the scenario for a self-funded retiree with $1 million of assets and $50,000 a year of income, the cost will be $70,000 plus a non-clinical care contribution of $32,923 a year, taking the cost, before any extras, over $100,000 a year

Nice chart but doesn't make sense. Current 60 year olds may be pre-selected to have survived the last 60 years (pretty high chance anyways) but they will reach 80 before more drastic advances in medicine are made and have lived a life according to lower health standards. So their midpoint will be around 85.

Current 20 year old should not have an 80 year old midpoint. That's for people dying in 2025. They should live until at least 95 on average.

 

[Joe Blow]

It's fine to question immigration. That's a legitimate topic of discussion. But let's keep race out of it. We can discuss religion, culture, values and ideology because all these things are ideas that can be adopted or discarded. But race, like gender, is immutable and it's wrong to discriminate against, or demean, others on the basis of an immutable aspect of their person.

 

[Smurf1976]

I would have to disagree that a “huge amount of human effort is intentionally dumped into low or no productivity”

To explain my reasoning, comparing now with 60 years ago:

*Practically every work task, anything from office work to physical construction, has become at least somewhat more productive due to computers, cordless power tools, pre-manufactured or mixed materials, better equipment, etc.

*Lots of jobs that used to exist are now DIY or the industry's disappeared completely. Eg bus conductors, tea ladies, lift operators, bank tellers etc all gone or greatly reduced in number.

*Historically a good portion of the workforce wasn't being used, since married women typically weren't employed.

*Generally quite rigid demarcation in workplaces, inefficient processes and schedules, etc.

But despite all that our society still managed to manufacture practically everything locally, to build enough houses and infrastructure, provide services and so on.

So something really isn't adding up is how I'm seeing it. The work itself is more productive, practically all women are part of the workforce, we've done away with "make work" jobs conducting buses and pressing buttons in lifts, etc, and yet somehow we're short on people to do all sorts of things. Everything from motor mechanics to doctors it's hard to get anyone.

Something really isn't adding up there and the only explanation I can think of is there's a problem with how labour's being applied. That we seem to be doing the equivalent of revving the engine flat out but not actually moving all that fast, as though we're stuck in low gear.

Relevance I see to the thread is as the population ages, logically we're going to see a declining workforce participation and especially so in physical jobs as well as a loss of skills in those areas. So labour needs to be deployed efficiently.

 

[Value Collector]

To explain my reasoning, comparing now with 60 years ago:

*Practically every work task, anything from office work to physical construction, has become at least somewhat more productive due to computers, cordless power tools, pre-manufactured or mixed materials, better equipment, etc.

*Lots of jobs that used to exist are now DIY or the industry's disappeared completely. Eg bus conductors, tea ladies, lift operators, bank tellers etc all gone or greatly reduced in number.

*Historically a good portion of the workforce wasn't being used, since married women typically weren't employed.

*Generally quite rigid demarcation in workplaces, inefficient processes and schedules, etc.

But despite all that our society still managed to manufacture practically everything locally, to build enough houses and infrastructure, provide services and so on.

So something really isn't adding up is how I'm seeing it. The work itself is more productive, practically all women are part of the workforce, we've done away with "make work" jobs conducting buses and pressing buttons in lifts, etc, and yet somehow we're short on people to do all sorts of things. Everything from motor mechanics to doctors it's hard to get anyone.

Something really isn't adding up there and the only explanation I can think of is there's a problem with how labour's being applied. That we seem to be doing the equivalent of revving the engine flat out but not actually moving all that fast, as though we're stuck in low gear.

Relevance I see to the thread is as the population ages, logically we're going to see a declining workforce participation and especially so in physical jobs as well as a loss of skills in those areas. So labour needs to be deployed efficiently.

I think you are missing something here.

You are saying we mustn’t be as productive because we used to produce all we needed locally but now we don’t.

What you are missing is that we now consume vastly more goods and services than we did back in the 50’s. I mean just look at the houses now compared to then, we have people employed adding all sorts of features that didn’t exist, look at the service industry as another example, the travel industry.

Per worker we are producing far more goods and services.

 

[qldfrog]

What about https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250711-1
And now i will ask a very simple question, away from the keyboard warriors ideology theorists: if you have ever had feet on the ground, travelling or living there:
where do you prefer to live, where are you safer, happier to live?
In the 2025 cesspool of France, UK, Germany or even California or Nigeria/Pakistan vs the so terrible low demographic collapse of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Japan or even, to the extreme, China?

 

[rederob]

What about https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250711-1
And now i will ask a very simple question, away from the keyboard warriors ideology theorists: if you have ever had feet on the ground, travelling or living there:
where do you prefer to live, where are you safer, happier to live?
In the 2025 cesspool of France, UK, Germany or even California or Nigeria/Pakistan vs the so terrible low demographic collapse of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Japan or even, to the extreme, China?

It's pretty clear from the above posts that you are OFF TOPIC.
Are you able to demonstrate how age impacts any of the nations you have listed, as distinct from other factors?

 

[farmerge]

What about https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250711-1
And now i will ask a very simple question, away from the keyboard warriors ideology theorists: if you have ever had feet on the ground, travelling or living there:
where do you prefer to live, where are you safer, happier to live?
In the 2025 cesspool of France, UK, Germany or even California or Nigeria/Pakistan vs the so terrible low demographic collapse of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Japan or even, to the extreme, China?

Short answer Australia hands down simple

 

[Dona Ferentes]

I posted the full article elsewhere, and thought of putting it here but time slipped away.

 

[Value Collector]

What about https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250711-1
And now i will ask a very simple question, away from the keyboard warriors ideology theorists: if you have ever had feet on the ground, travelling or living there:
where do you prefer to live, where are you safer, happier to live?
In the 2025 cesspool of France, UK, Germany or even California or Nigeria/Pakistan vs the so terrible low demographic collapse of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Japan or even, to the extreme, China?

I could happily live in the UK, the wife and Love it, we always have a good time there.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Key Takeaways​

• China, Germany, and Japan have all reached peak population by 2024, based on analysis from the UN.
• Across 48 countries, populations are projected to peak between 2025 and 2054, representing 10% of the world population.
• Meanwhile, 126 countries are forecast to grow through 2054, including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and America.

Today, at least one in two countries globally have fertility rates below the 2.1 replacement level.

Going further, women bear one child fewer, on average, than around 1990. Paired with aging populations, this suggests that several countries have already hit their population peak, according to the latest analysis from the UN.

This graphic shows global population peak by country, based on data from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 report.

Notably, more than a quarter of the global population live in countries that are shrinking in population size including Japan, Cuba, Germany, and China. In Japan, 30% of the population is aged 65 or older, the highest rate globally after Monaco. Today, 43 countries are considered “super-aged”, where the senior population makes up at least 20% of the population.

On the other hand, immigration will be a primary driver of population growth in countries like the U.S. and Canada, despite record-low fertility rates. Overall, 52 countries are projected to grow through 2054 largely due to national immigration policies.

Meanwhile, high fertility rates and younger demographics are set to propel growth in 126 countries, with many of these being among the world’s most populous. India, Pakistan, and Indonesia all fall within this group.

Mapped: When Each Country Will Reach Its Population Peak

The global population peak may be 60 years off, but population decline has already begun in many countries around the world.

www.visualcapitalist.com