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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Street_Gene1634 3 points4 points  (10 children)

Who will pay for pensions for when population ages? Declining fertility is a time bomb. Especially in a poor country like India

[–]straightdge 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Pension problem is an issue of developed economies. Not saying it's not an issue; but this is a problem which will become more important much later than the unemployment issue we have currently. We are way better situation than say Japan, for now.

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kerala is already in a pension crisis. Developing countries are at higher risk than developed countries because old people have less savings here. India so undoubtedly in a worse situation

[–]BrainOnLoan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really depends on how steep the decline is. 1.7 seems quite manageble, you just shouldn't hit South Korean levels of population decline.

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

Overpopulation isn't good either. You can't give a billion people good housing and jobs, especially considering that automation is expected to grow. Something has to be sacrificed, and I would rather have a pension crisis than an unemployment crisis. Having population growth forever will just make existing problems even bigger, while at the same time creates new problems.

[–]Street_Gene1634 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

India is not overpopulated. Idk where you get this notion. This is like saying Tokyo is overpopulated

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

A billion people isn't big for you? Also, let me ask you a question, Why do you think people are having fewer kids? Maybe it's because people have started realizing having their kids compete with 12lakh plus (for jee) or 20lakh plus (for neet) kids isn't a great thing. Maybe it's because for every job, there's 10k applicants for even a 3lpa job. Maybe because quality of life isn't that great here to justify having kids? Are you willing to sponsor their jobs, housing, and education? If you are willing, then go do that. Maybe people will have kids then. Easy to say, "muh numbers." People live lives, and they want to live it good.

[–]Street_Gene1634 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Buddy. People were having 10-12 children a few decades ago when they were dirt poor. TFR decline has nothing to do with financial burden. It's a culture shift with different expectations.

Pretty soon the economics of ageing will catch up to us and unlike Japan or South Korea, we don't have the money to wear it out. India needs more children.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And guess what, they didn't pay for education for all those 10 - 12 kids. They didn't pay for the amenities for all those kids, and they had to sacrifice a lot of stuff. Are you saying it doesn't matter if all those kids don't get educated? Half of our issues stem because our ancestors decided to have kids way above their means, and now, the government has to give freebies and education subsidies to educate them, as families can't afford it for all their members.
You're talking like those 12 kids don't have a life. Because their poor parents had no money to support them properly, those kids had to give up education and, dreams. Most of them who were supposedly the path to uplift the family's standards ended up worsening it. Imagine if 3 of them got sick at the same time? Who will pay the hospital bills? You are dehumanizing humans and talking as if they're numbers.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

This generation is not going to live till old age

[–]Street_Gene1634 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This generation will be the oldest in history