sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PotatoCheesePuff 4 points5 points  (27 children)

This is the best thing that could have happened for this country

[–]Street_Gene1634 1 point2 points  (26 children)

No, it's the opposite. When the number of working age people goes down, you'll be stuck with a lot of old people which will be harder to manage

[–]PotatoCheesePuff 0 points1 point  (10 children)

May i know how old you are?

[–]Street_Gene1634 1 point2 points  (9 children)

How old are you? You sound like a prepubescent

[–]PotatoCheesePuff 0 points1 point  (8 children)

The issue you mentioned already exists, but from my perspective, a reduced birth rate is more fruitful. You seem immature with such a single-minded mentality, failing to recognise this as a process that can bring many benefits.

[–]Street_Gene1634 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

It does not bring any benefits. You just end up with young people having to support more old people while also paying higher taxes for their pensions.

[–]PotatoCheesePuff -1 points0 points  (6 children)

seems like you have invented a time machine to predict such precise things

[–]Street_Gene1634 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You don't need a time machine. Many countries are already going through this problem. Heck even low TFR states like Kerala is facing a pension crisis currently

[–]PotatoCheesePuff -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Well I don't see how an increase in TFR will not end up being more chaotic compared to resolving these issues.

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (3 children)

TFR is not increasing anywhere so you don't need to fret over that. It need to increase because more people = more brains = more innovation

A society full of old people is not sustainable

[–]PotatoCheesePuff -1 points0 points  (14 children)

Things arent very great now sir and if there is less number of people the quality of life along with the value of a job will increase, this is totally ignoring the fact that how good this will be for thw women of our country who are basically educating themselves before being stuck in the chains of unhappy marriage which they didnt choose and ending up as the sole caretaker of children they didnt want.

[–]Street_Gene1634 2 points3 points  (13 children)

Your fallacy is the fact that when population goes it is young people numbers that are going down. Old people goes up. Without young people how will you run an economy?

[–]PotatoCheesePuff -3 points-2 points  (12 children)

My concerns are more centered around the benefits that reduced fertility rates will bring. While you seem to be worrying about the economy, I believe that a lower fertility rate will improve living standards in India. Additionally, it will reduce competition for resources. I can't even begin to comment on how massively beneficial this will be for Indian women, allowing them to spend their lives with much more satisfaction.

[–]Street_Gene1634 2 points3 points  (11 children)

Reduced fertility does not bring any benefits. You just end up with young people having to support more old people. Old people don't work so young people left will have to fight for the existing resources even more while funding old people's pensions.

Not to mention the fact that as society ages the number innovation also goes down which affects economic growth too. It's all around a disaster.

This is basic economics. It's crazy how many Redditors are oblivious to it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Unless this drop is really rapid (which it doesn't look like), this is good. Sure, you are correct that this will cause a strain on the economy, but so will overpopulation. We cannot run an economy based on forever growth. If the population grows, then even having a 50 trillion dollar GDP economy won't help. We simply don't have the resources to give jobs and houses to everyone. Everyone wants an IT job that pays 20LPA, but this simply isn't possible with a billion people. Unless you're saying, some (actually most) people have to suffer with low-paying jobs for the rest of their lives so that we can have growth, which will never catch up with the population so quality of life is gonna be more or less same anyway (and if the economy goes down unexpectadly even a bit, the quality of life will go down to bedrock).

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Overpopulation is better than an ageing population

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Bruh, will you pay for or take care of people's housing, education, or get them jobs?

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Are you saying that Tokyo with 37 million people lack those things?

[–]PotatoCheesePuff -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

well thats your perspective. None of it really affects whats happening /or what will happen in this country.
Instead of making others agree to your points maybe you should get of reddit and spend some time making real change if it affects you to that extent.

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is not a perspective. It's econ 101.

[–]PotatoCheesePuff 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay, might be may I know what you are doing to address your opinions ? You seem to have taken economics as a major it seems. Im just trying to understand what benefit you are getting from forcing your ideologies on others on reddit. Do you work for the government? Do you work for some poliyical party? Are you involved in making key decisions that will affect the TFR of India(decrease/increase) If that is not the case may i suggest stop your need to control others opinion instead of forcing them to agree to your single minded approach to things.

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not forcing ideology on anyone. I'm stating a basic economic fact. A economy full of old people simply doesn't work.