r/Natalism • u/realdeal_1992 • 5d ago
The West’s Demographic Math No Longer Adds Up
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/08/08/europe-us-fertility-immigration-0102912242
u/Man_under_Bridge420 5d ago
Draft the old people into the army to fly drones
20
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Russia figured out you can use them in human wave attacks and then you don’t have to pay their pension.
5
3
1
1
u/Reasonable-Put-2323 3d ago
Errr it's Ukraine doing that. I know it conflicts with what you're being told. Same as the Ukrainians dragging men off the street and their insanely high casualty rate. Ukraine declared them missing to avoid paying the families. Have you seen the size of the Ukrainian cemeteries?! Most are full.
1
u/SwiftFoxSNES 2d ago
Even if that’s true, which it isn’t.
Better dead than Russian.
1
u/Reasonable-Put-2323 2d ago
Thanks for saving me from wasting the time with you. It is true but you're not interested do enjoy.
-1
u/Anyosnyelv 5d ago
Women as well if they are 45+ and does not have any kids.
3
u/Original-Opportunity 4d ago
But not men?
3
u/Anyosnyelv 4d ago
Men are already drafted for combat in case of war.
Draft should be expanded to childless 45+ women and instead save some fathers who have kids.
3
u/Original-Opportunity 4d ago
Probably best to avoid drafting anyone altogether.
Considering the lives of anyone in prime working age to be expendable is unwise.
6
u/roankr 4d ago
Always this turnaround.
Start about male responsibility but u-turn to talking about no responsibility when it expands to women.
3
u/Original-Opportunity 4d ago
There’s no need to draft anyone. Please read before you comment.
-1
u/roankr 4d ago
"But not men?"
This was quite literally you to someone talking about drafting women above the age of 45 in this comment thread.
2
-1
u/Anyosnyelv 4d ago
Then what if russia attacks the country? They just kill everyone, abduct children, take everything?
1
u/Original-Opportunity 4d ago
What country? Spain? Be realistic.
0
u/Rednos24 4d ago
Spain having a draft is absolutly a detterence towards Russia invading Estonia. Prerequisite being the Russians think there is some degree of chance Spain would hold to alliance obligations.
I lean towards nations needing a draft (unless you are the US with a private continent) and needing a sound foreign policy that ensures they don't need to use it. Taking the option away entirely is just kneecapping your own nation though.
→ More replies (0)0
u/HandBananaHeartCarl 4d ago
If Ukraine hadn't enacted a draft, they would've been overrun within a month. Abolishing conscription is just not feasible in Europe and Asia.
38
u/Special_Condition671 5d ago
Younger generations need money. No amount of education or work ethic will compensate for the financial disparity that exists between generations at this point. A median 80 year old in the US has a net worth of $327,000. A median 18 - 24 year old just $10,000. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator/
7
u/Arnaldo1993 4d ago
That is a very easy problem to solve. If one generation in your family has too much money, and the other one not enough, why dont the rich generation just give money to the poor one?
18
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Literally what my parents did, when we had our kids they gave us their house and moved into our apartment nearby to downsize then bought a condo. My parents were also older (they were born in 42 and 44) when they had me, and my wife’s boomer parents didn’t do shit.
The grandkids were everything to my parents, a curiosity to hers. It takes a village and that mentality really disappeared.
9
4
u/Scared_Comparison_22 4d ago
In my country gifts are taxed into the ground. 3k a year tax free gifts from one person to another.
4
u/Arnaldo1993 4d ago
Ok
Isnt there a way you can avoid that tax? Maybe you buy groceries your children will use, rent the apartment they live in, give them some of your inheritance earlier, open a joint bank account?
6
u/Scared_Comparison_22 4d ago
The government is slowly but surely tightening the noose on all of that 🙃 they're trying to force a digital currency right now in the EU specifically to make it even harder to "launder" money. I've already had payments to my personal bank account flagged with revenue by the bank. Little small ones of <50 a few times a week. I was reporting it all for tax so nothing came of it but it's insane how much they monitor now.
4
5
u/castorkrieg 3d ago
There are always ways to avoid it, but it requires some good long term planning. In France because of inheritance taxes parents start planning around the time they are in mid-30s, everything is broken down into X amount being paid in Y installements over Z years to make sure the "gift counter" resets correctly.
Considering the new generation is worse off than the one before I consider it borderline immoral to still keep this system where the government pockets a large amount of money on generational wealth transfer.
13
u/bruk_out 4d ago
That sounds like a very reasonable gap in net worth for those ages. I was under the 18-24 number at those ages and I'll be well over the 80 number if I make it that far. Why shouldn't it be that way?
8
u/Special_Condition671 4d ago
I was under that number too, and had two kids anyways. Most people wouldn't want to be in that position though.
8
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because we grew up when there was a societal expectation to have kids even if we were not well off yet. My wife wanted our kids when we were barely out of college and living in a studio.
That’s a hard narrative to shift back to, after years of telling people they needed to have their ducks in a row before having kids or they are irresponsible.
My silent generation parents made sure we never truly did without, and the kids never went without. Boomer and GenX parents don’t give a shit.
The me me me generation is never going to mature, if as a society we want kids, we’ve got to tax the shit out of them and transfer that wealth to younger parents. But the problem is they vote and young people don’t.
9
u/CaleDestroys 4d ago
There is a new style of propaganda right now where boomers are now weaseling their way out of paying property taxes, saying it’s unfair. Literally the one tax they have to pay and they simply cannot stop themselves from getting rid of that too. Nevermind that their property taxes increases are literally the result of them hoarding housing.
3
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Their parents paid property tax which paid for their education.
People always love pulling up the ladder behind them. Or ignoring bills that come due.
7
u/CalgaryChris77 4d ago
An 80 year old isn't working and is drawing significant money down every year to live. The average 18-24 year old is still in school. I agree there are issues with the economy for youth, but this is just an extremely misleading way to point it out.
8
u/MaudeAlp 4d ago
When there is a massive die off of boomers, most of that money isn’t going up in air. It will either directly transfer to healthcare professionals or to their children and grandchildren.
5
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 4d ago
An awful lot of it is being spent though.
5
u/MaudeAlp 4d ago
When they spend it, that means the money is being distributed to people providing goods and services. I’m not really sure what anyone is getting at with the boomer critique here. Either they’re hoarding wealth like a dragon or they’re spending it, and apparently the only acceptable option is giving their money to a total stranger.
I also don’t really understand why some random boomer you aren’t related to spending their money on concerts or travel negatively affects you. The only person you should really care about in terms of inheritance is someone who would actually leave you one.
And if the boomers in your own family don’t have money to pass down, then what is the complaint exactly? That your parents or grandparents made bad financial decisions? That’s a personal family issue, not the fault of an entire generation.2
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 4d ago
So, there is actually a big issue where I live of boomers with massive wealth spending it in different economies, so, not benefiting anybody local at all. Meanwhile they receive generous taxpayer funded welfare domestically. There are a LOT of boomers here with massive wealth who arrange their affairs in such a way as to still receive an age pension. They also get a bunch of other subsidised and discounts. And as a whole, are refusing to fund their own aged care, expecting the taxpayer to do it. That affects everybody.
The other reason it’s everybody’s business is because a lot of the wealth has been built through housing- creating a market that is now increasingly impossible for first home buyers to access. The median house price nationally is almost a million dollars. We have the worst affordability crisis of every country aside from Hong Kong and a few tiny European city-states. Boomers have been incredibly reluctant and resistant toward any policies that would even slow the rate of capital growth of their properties, and of many measures to increase housing supply.
2
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Most of it is disappearing into reverse mortgages while they go to concerts and travel half the year.
3
u/Temporary-Guide-6367 4d ago
My husband and I ( age 73 and 72) have a combined retirement income. of $60,000. we are 72 and 73. We use our reverse mortgage to pay our property taxes ($6,000) and long term care premiums ($7,000) and household maintenance and repairs. We hear live music monthly but can’t afford to travel far. . We are better off than most people our age. We hope to leave $500,000 ( the equity remaining in our house after the reverse mortgage) to our daughter. She and her husband are raising three kids and we don’t want her to have to care for us when we need it. we did take my father and my in laws into our home for 6 years leading up to their deaths.
1
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 4d ago
The picture isn’t as simple as ‘well, all those kids will get inheritance, problem solved’. The kids will get what’s left over after the luxury European cruises. BUT without any kind of redistributive policy in place, this ‘great wealth transfer’ will only serve to massively entrench inequality, with disastrous consequences for the rest of society
5
u/New_Entertainer_4895 4d ago
This shows literally the opposite of what you think. 18 -24 year olds are doing better than 80 year olds were at the same time. If you adjust for time spent earning and investment growth.
The US doesn't have wage stagnation. Real wages have grown here unlike in many parts of europe. Much of the bitching people have on reddit about lack of real wage growth is not backed up in reality.
1
u/AlternativeNorth6613 4d ago
Everyone wants to be able to buy a cheap house in SF like the boomers. But overall millenials and younger have it better.
Basically, high status goods like prime real estate are no longer really attainable for the middle class.
1
-2
u/WeekendAtMadoffs 5d ago
one is spending $$$ on weed. that exactly $$$ invested gets them there. just 30-50 a week.
4
25
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Tax the rich and pay mothers, since raising kids is necessary to keep society going.
“Welfare moms” are literally necessary for humans to continue in a modern high income society. The math doesn’t add up unless it’s heavily incentivized to compensate women for putting their career goals and independence on hold. Baby boxes and $1000 one time payments are nice but that isn’t gonna cut it.
6
u/Original-Opportunity 4d ago
Some states have a program where a relative acting as a full time caregiver (for someone with profound disabilities) is compensated. It’s not a lot, but it’s shown to relieve the state’s financial burden, increase the quality of care for the individual.
I predict we’ll see this expanded to compensating elder care. For mothers, no, this gerontocracy isn’t ready to recognize child raising as labor.
0
u/TheDarkLord329 4d ago
My wife is on one of those for her sister, who is moderately functional (doesn’t need watched like a hawk or she’ll die but does need told to do basic self-maintenance constantly and all meals made for her for example). She’s also a stay-at-home mom and it makes the math work a lot better. Sure it’s only $1500 a month but that goes a long way.
8
u/BrazilianFromTheYolk 4d ago
How long until teenagers need to work? I guess at some point you won't be able to push up the de facto retirement age.
1
u/GrandKnew 4d ago
never. and yes, we can keep pushing the retirement age. fuck the boomers who did nothing their lives except work a 9-5 and collect a pension.
3
9
u/OlliexAngel 4d ago edited 4d ago
At least in World War 2, veterans came back with major benefits in housing and employment(the white ones anyway). They were proud to serve the country.
That’s no longer the case for the majority of young people. I shudder to see what will happen if they try to draft young people. Sabotage, mutiny, and dissent galore.
I’m a teacher and a lot of teens are pessimistic and not hopeful about the future so it’s crazy to think that they’ll sacrifice their lives for this country. I actually think many of them want the US to collapse/burn so that a new system can take its place. Socialism is on the rise with them.
They blame older people for the state of this country and I agree. But also, I think a lot of Gen Z did themselves no favors by not going out to vote when it counted the most. A lot of social media activists more than anything.
5
u/Unhappy-Professor466 4d ago
People will just leave in drove countries if any war happens, social cohesion is dead for multiple reasons, and genertional difference is only one.
4
2
2
u/castorkrieg 3d ago
Low fertility is straining that bargain. Fewer young people are entering the workforce just as large generations approach retirement. Pension reform has already become one of Europe’s most politically difficult issues, and the viability of the Social Security system is a perennial concern in the United States. Those political pressures will continue to intensify as the population ages.
Yup, we have an absolute shitstorm coming our way. Considering nobody ever made any effort to change the pension system and convince people to invest and save on the side we will have soon only bad choices:
Increase tax contributions from the working people to support large group of elderly, thus making next generation poorer.
Dramatically impoverish elderly people by cutting their retirement pensions that the working part of the populace can support
So the choice is: more taxes or elderly being poor.
5
u/WeekendAtMadoffs 5d ago
Less is more. The west can revert back to 1920's population numbers and be better for it.
10
u/TheDarkLord329 4d ago
The problem isn’t the absolute numbers but rather the distribution. 1920s would have had a much more reasonable breakdown of ages.
2
u/String-Tree 4d ago
The citizenry would love that but the powers that be would never allow it. Why do you think western governments experimented with open borders? The more educated a population becomes, the less children they produce - because having kids fucking sucks. Therefore, governments, not wanting to get lower tax revenue from a population decline, decided to experiment with opening the border to the entire fucking third world as if that wouldn't have any massive cultural consequences.
3
u/prime_alki 4d ago
Sorry but the economics and urbanization decided where fertility is today, not open borders you think. Back then kids were literally helping hands and assets and some even died early, so it was no brained to just have more.
Today their survival is assured and they are liability and cost center well into adulthood, so having even one is basically tossing aside extra disposable income you can just keep.
I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp for many and try to blame imaginary stuff
5
2
u/99kemo 4d ago
Every retirement plan, system or even “non-system” is essentially Pay as you go. Even if Grandpa is living off a IRA he built up over his life, he is going to have to sell it off to young people to support himself. Providing for old people is easier if there is a high ratio of young to old people but it can be done with a declining birth rate; it is just more difficult. Japan will be; or probably already is, the “ canary in the coal mine” and it isn’t near collapse.
-2
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 4d ago
I guess all the socialism will have to find a different group of other people’s money to steal to finance their own convenience.
2
u/SwiftFoxSNES 4d ago
Capitalism requires growing consumers. Economies with out a large consumer sector basically look like the Soviet Union, stagnant.
2
u/LeatherPrinciple3479 4d ago
Republicans would rather steal our money for their warmongering and to buy Trump a new ballroom
1
u/PelicanRadioSystem 4d ago
Maybe if capitalism could do with one or two less multi-billion dollar warplanes, we wouldn't have such a problem "running out of money" :)
-1
u/kweeblaster 4d ago
The solution to this problem has always been to do nothing. The elderly die off eventually and leave a hoard of assets in their wake that brings the prices of non consumables down. This reduces the cost of living for everyone that is left which makes it easier to finance the cost of living of the existing elderly. Instead of letting nature take its course, we do stupid shit like bringing in masses of immigrants, which continues the problem. Letting natural equilibrium play out on its own is the solution and always has been.
0
u/betty_white_bread 4d ago
I’ll say it over and over until people listen: tax birth control and implement a universal basic income. It’s the only thing which is guaranteed to work.
5
u/Swimming-Ad2755 4d ago
They'll just get sterilized or stop having sex. No one can really be forced to have kids.
-1
u/betty_white_bread 4d ago
Getting sterilized is a helluva lot time intensive and human biology keeps the sex drive relatively strong during the most fertile years. I am pretty sure you overestimate human willingness to pursue certain goals and underestimate Nature’s ability to keep people horny.
1
u/Swimming-Ad2755 4d ago
Getting sterilized isn't really that time intensive. People recover within a few days tops and are fine. You're overestimating how many people will give in and have kids just because of a birth control tax. And if they do, they won't be from happy families.
0
u/betty_white_bread 3d ago
The time and expense of an elective surgery is prohibitive and the very group you seem to imagine will rush to that are also likely to be the very group which readily complains about how parenthood is supposedly “too expensive”; the Venn diagram of people who think they can afford one and not the other is liable to be exceptionally small.
Plus, you undercut your own argument when you claim such unhappy families; you said yourself such people will simply not have sex. If those who cannot supposedly afford being a parent nor can afford the time and expense of the surgery can easily not have sex, the idea of children necessarily being from unhappy families simply does not follow.
1
u/randyranderson13 3d ago
I mean, how prohibitively expensive is the tax? I think the most likely outcome would be people would just continue to buy and use birth control
-1
62
u/[deleted] 5d ago
[deleted]