Not this Sh%$ Again

France underwent a demographic transition in the late 1700s, with falling birthrates, and France is still here.

The Black Death in the 1300s killed off ½ of Europe's population, and this was followed by an increase in productivity and standard of living that remains unparalleled to this day.^* In fact, we know that the plague hit Poland only because of the skyrocketing wages, and the attempts of ruling elites throughout Europe to suppress those wage increases.

Japan has had falling working age populations for year, but the GDP per working age person has been growing faster than in the United States.  (Total GDP has been growing more slowly though.)

Falling populations are good for most of the population, but because of the laws of supply and demand, it means that the elites have less leverage to keep wages and other remuneration lower, so they do not do as well, so we periodically get hand wringing articles from journals of conventional thought, in this case from the New York Times, suggesting that the end of population growth world wide in the next 50 years or so is an oncoming disaster.

Using American Social Security numbers, if the demographic transition results in an increase in taxes from 7½% to (for example) 15%, but wages increases by 20% because dollars are chasing fewer workers (Supply and Demand, Econ 101), the most people are MUCH better off than they were before.

The only people who lose in this situation are people who employ low wage workers, because they will have to pay higher wages.

My heard bleeds for these ratf%$#s.

^*Also, the increase in standard of living led to the adoption of underwear, which led to paper, which led to one of the first information revolutions, but that's another story.