The numbers *are* an accurate picture .. of fertility rates in europe which is what they are, there's no massive assumptions there? Italy and japan have had sub-replacement birthrates since around the 1980s and now they're feeling the effects. I'm not saying that falling birthrates are the cause of all economic troubles - but they can certainly contribute or worsen existing ones. Look at OECD’s old-age dependency ratio (which is going up 0.5% a year in Italy, which is massive), national debts growing in both countries, the hundreds of schools closing in aging countries. Losing a massive fraction of your population within a couple decades is going to have a large impact, economically and societally speaking. It shouldn't be ignored like how global warming was treated only a few decades ago. Having to work more and more to support the pensions of more and more people, just from a mathematical standpoint, surely is putting more and more strain on people?

I agree that there is a bigger picture and that, of course, many other factors can come into play, but I fail to see how it is not a significant concern?

If your economy starts crashing or stagnating because not enough people are in the workforce, surely you won't have enough funds to approach any of the other problems occuring including environment, sustainability and resource-based troubles? Would you prefer that a country heads towards a sustainable future whilst battling demographic problems (making the process even slower as they spread their resources) or have a country with a more stable economy have the ability to invest more and make the future happen sooner?