European Birthrates

We always hear about the birthrate of Europe declining, and how that's a bad thing. Why exactly is it bad? Less people means less resources being exhausted and higher wages. Birthrates shrink and rise naturally. You don't have steady growth forever. It wouldn't even be sustainable if you did.

To expand, Birthrates are cyclical.

D E M O G R A P H I C
T R A N S I T I O N
B E L O W
R E P L A C E M E N T
U R B A N I Z A T I O N
F E M A L E E D U C A T I O N

Declining birthrates in the west are being countered by rising birth rates in the Turd World. Europe's population is increasing despite the dramatic fall-off in native fertility.

We generally want most people to be working age. If kids aren't being born, at some point the majority of humans will be too elderly to keep the system running.

Well it is a super complex issue and nobody here will be qualified enough to give the whole story but I can explain one simple part of it.
Dependency ratio, the number of people working in an economy versus those that don't. It is general hardericaer on countries that have dependency ratios because fewer people need to support the lives of more people. This phenomenah is seen in both countries of extremely high and low average age.

But also it is important to remember declining birth rate is not an apocalyptic scenario.

Not racist but the only benefit to our economy is less people in certain parts of the world

capitalism demands an ever expanding domestic market

So how exactly do you support a huge retired population with fewer younger people working?

Capitalist economies are successful only with growth. Taxation and budgets only work when the next generation is larger (therefore more fruitful) than the previous one that is leaving the market, so to speak.

Too many old people we need to support (life expectancy is on an all time high), which leads to higher taxes and an overall poorer population. Resources aren't really the driving force of economy in the developed world, it's capable professionals, and it's what we get fewer of.

In a democratic society, it's a major problem, because power then becomes unevenly distributed among the elderly, how also happen to be the most costly and demanding demographic group.

They essentially have the power and democratic legimacy to divert ressources from long term problems - such as education and climate change - into short term problems like health care and crime, leaving their children with the bill.

This is happening in every European country

Why isn't it apocalyptic?

Because there's no interest in restructuring the economy, even though it's a better choice in long term. Less people = no growth = economic death in global capitalism. People don't live as long as countries do so no one feels invested in making good choices. I predict that Europe's population balloons to a full billion and starts looking like Mumbai or something.

>Less people means less resources being exhausted and higher wages
Nuke India and China then

Easy solution: increase productivity, which has been increasing for many decades in the past and will increase for a long time into the future.

Because the welfare system is not sustainable when you have too many oldies feasting on the rent, letting them die on the street as long as they did not make children who help them would counter this.

Another concern is that you need a surplus of young males who can be spend in military endavours and protect society. If this is not the case you become weak as the lifes of your soldiers become too precious and you either have to step into nuclear and bioweapon saberrattling or get finlandisized by the countries that still have an armed surplus of males to threaten you with.

Basically, old people need to fucking kill themselves.
What if you reach a cap?

What if the retired population increases faster than productivity?

that can be read on the economy of the time? where to find the electronic version of the memoirs of Lyndon Johnson? or advise me torrents.
sorry for the tongue-tied, I'm Russian.

Because our economic system depends on infinite growth. Also, alot of it is pure propaganda from the people who profit from mass immigration.

>Birthrates are cyclical
what a completely meaningless thing to say
this "cycle" of birthrates is something we vaguely see in some animal populations, usually large mammals, however, when was the last time Britian's population decreased significantly from a Malthusian event? (The black death isn't Malthusian). Literally hasn't been for over a thousand years, and that was from the economic collapse of the Roman rump states there, and this happened long before the industrial revolution. Additionally modern humans are generally not considered to be part of a cyclical foot shortage model. Humans have increase the efficiency of agriculture and their populations stabilize due to societal reasons (not due to Malthusian equilibrium). In other words, nothing like the current population decline has ever happened in human history, not at 1/100th the scale even. If there are shit tons of octagenerians and no brits to support them, that island (and many other places in a similar situation) might be in some serious shit that can't be addressed by simply saying "hurr durr population changes are part of a natural cycle" because its not that fucking simple. Unfortunately for /pol/...the immigrants are coming, and they will be invited sooner or later.

>less people being born = smaller workforce
>smaller workforce = retired people outnumbering the workers
>retired people outnumbering the workers = there's no money to pay retired people their pensions / social security and not enough tax revenue to keep the state running
>all of that = economy collapses

How do you solve that? Well of course, with increased immigration, goyim. Preferably from a non-white population.

bye bye whitey

It's disastrous in terms of economics and international power.

The less folks you have buying stuff, the less relevant your nation becomes on the international economic stage. Given the nature of the global markets these days, this is particularly critical.

If that weren't bad enough, there's the problem that, so long as your birth rates are declining, you're forever in a situation where your elderly outnumber your young, meaning a significant degree of both the individual and collective resources are being sunk into an older generation that isn't producing labor.

And as a result of that labor discrepancy, you're left with two choices: import people from foreign lands who may irrecoverably alter your culture, or export most of your labor needs, creating unemployment at home, further adding to the strain on that younger generation. Most nations in this situation, of course, do both.

As a result of all this, you're pretty much destined for endless cyclic recessions, until you can raise the birth rates again. (See Japan.)

It'd be a *little* better, if all nations were uniformly declining in birth rates, or if the rich nations were booming and the poor nations were declining, but alas, it isn't nearly uniform and it tends to be the developing world nations that have strongly positive, even rising birthrates, to boot.

I suppose the only other way to mitigate the problem would be a one world government, culture, and economy that could more easily shift labor about as needed and have the shifts be less damaging, but alas, that idea scares folks more than perpetual recession.

Because they're being replaced by violent uneducated brown people with incompatible values and a disdain for their host country.

This is what happens when real wages stagnate for 40 years, house prices sky rocket, and you convince women that to raise children at home is to sell out their gender.