Greentext

8826 readers

884 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

739

Anon isn't worried about population decline (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

168 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Why do you care about the ratio of workers to old people? What matters is the ratio of dependents to workers. We have more retirees, but we also have fewer children. This isn't that hard. If we could manage the Baby Boom of the 50s, we can manage this.

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

What matters even more is total productivity per citizen. It does not matter if a house is built by 20 builders with shovels or 5 builders with excavators. What matters is the house being built. And productivity per worker has massively risen and is, in my opinion, going to rise further.

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

That's an interesting point but I'm not sure if the numbers really add up. As I understand it, the number of dependents will be greater from population decline (primarily due to an aging population) than it was during the baby boom