New Zealand Loosens Residency Restrictions As Record Numbers Of Kiwis Leave

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

13 hours ago, Economy said:

We've had faster consistent population booms in previous times in human history including from the 1950s to 1980s... and housing never got THIS expensive and out if reach

 

I had a flash of inspiration today. I remembered that there is a technical term called "real wage". Real wage is income adjusted for purchasing power, which is actually available after inflation and tax deductions.

Due to inflation, income is constantly rising, obscuring a direct comparison over time. Studies show that real wages in the Western world have been stagnating since 1970. ( https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/growing-gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity )

Although output has increased thanks to machines, industrial robots, etc., this has not been reflected in higher real wages. This means that it is doubtful that robots and AI will make people richer.
So real wages are stagnating, but what is not stagnating is the population in Western Europe and North America, which is growing and growing. And as far as available space is concerned, people tend not to want a house in a village far away from a big city, but rather in an agglomeration or at least a medium-sized town. One might assume that people could build houses if they considered all available land, but they exclude a great deal. Most want Vancouver, Montréal, Toronto, the federal capitals, large cities, and the surrounding areas, especially the towns around the big cities grow. Then there are many interested parties for little space, and purchasing power has not increased, but competition has, so logically, more and more people cannot afford/get a house.

"Demographic decline" is a buzzword used by the economy and politicians to create a mood of doom and gloom, but I think DD has also its advantages for the people and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[Economy 52,861]

3 hours ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

I had a flash of inspiration today. I remembered that there is a technical term called "real wage". Real wage is income adjusted for purchasing power, which is actually available after inflation and tax deductions.

Due to inflation, income is constantly rising, obscuring a direct comparison over time. Studies show that real wages in the Western world have been stagnating since 1970. ( https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/growing-gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity )

Although output has increased thanks to machines, industrial robots, etc., this has not been reflected in higher real wages. This means that it is doubtful that robots and AI will make people richer.
So real wages are stagnating, but what is not stagnating is the population in Western Europe and North America, which is growing and growing. And as far as available space is concerned, people tend not to want a house in a village far away from a big city, but rather in an agglomeration or at least a medium-sized town. One might assume that people could build houses if they considered all available land, but they exclude a great deal. Most want Vancouver, Montréal, Toronto, the federal capitals, large cities, and the surrounding areas, especially the towns around the big cities grow. Then there are many interested parties for little space, and purchasing power has not increased, but competition has, so logically, more and more people cannot afford/get a house.

"Demographic decline" is a buzzword used by the economy and politicians to create a mood of doom and gloom, but I think DD has also its advantages for the people and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Ill also add in that cost of living and inflation are not the same thing, in some ways if thats factored in we may be worse off than in thr 1970s not just flat lined which is why people struggle now more than ever despite 2 full time incomes being the norm

 

I do agree with u that limited space in cities is a factor but not necessairily the single silver bullet explanation. I still believe it is a wide factor of reasons including what i wrote about

 

As for demographic decline i agree it has advantages but im not convinced the benefits in our current economic model outway the negatives...

 

Theres major sustainability issues with percetage of ppl paying taxes and contributing to pension programs vs the elderly that require it that Countries like Japan are putting a bandaid over but running big deficits and debt over time to cover it

 

Demographic decline is still a relatively new phenomenom. Its easy to say the benefits outway the negatives when jobs from retirees open up, housing costs fall yet the downsides are largely not felt because we kick the can down the road

 

Some of the benefits like lower unemployment and real wage gains would not be felt if governments cut spending to actually offset fewer tax contributers and lower economic output from fewer workers. 

 

Those retirees consumption either has to be subsidized by the fewer people working by ibcreasing their taxes and deductions (and thus shifting over purchasing power to maintain retirees)... or if you cut retirement benefits to not have to raise taxes on the working age people and let them maintain their disposable take home pay, then you do not get the unemployment benefits because as people leave the workforce, consumption would have to drop by an equivalent amount and jobs would be lost

 

Either way, if u do it sustainably, ur wages dont increase. From a financial and economic perspective all things veibg equal, anyway u look at it, a society in demographic decline has to be poorer because if fewer people are working relative to overall population, theres simply less purchasing power per citizen and wed see more obvious signs of that if Governments werent band aiding the symptoms with unsustsinable deficits

 

Housing affordability tho yes, is still an advantage

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

19 hours ago, Economy said:

As for demographic decline i agree it has advantages but im not convinced the benefits in our current economic model outway the negatives...

Theres major sustainability issues with percetage of ppl paying taxes and contributing to pension programs vs the elderly that require it that Countries like Japan are putting a bandaid over but running big deficits and debt over time to cover it

I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Ayesha invites you to take part in a thought experiment.   
Let's imagine a 28-year-old man travelling to a foreign country to work there with his wife and settle down permanently. He will get married there and have two children. He will pay taxes and increase the population. After about 40 years, however, he will be old himself and incur costs as a recipient. His wife will have only worked part-time in this case, but will also claim a pension and care. Their children will also be old at some point and incur care costs, and as children they will also incur costs; schools and teachers have to be paid for.
According to your model, there must be constant follow-up migration (or persistently high birth rates, or both), and a cycle of never-ending population growth is necessary. All the senior citizens who need to be cared for by their carers, etc., all these carers and taxpayers will themselves grow old and conjure up new carers according to your model, which will require more and more and more successors to "balance" the system.

Furthermore, your model will only be successful if there are sufficiently high employment rates. You assume that adults and young adults will work in sufficient numbers. And this work must then also be sufficiently high for centuries to come because of never-ending population growth. Canada is a relatively successful country with enough work, true. However, in southern European countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, there is high youth unemployment, and even among the over-25s, it is not ideal. These young adults incur costs instead of contributing to solving the problems of the elderly. Yes, it is even possible that in certain countries, adults not only have to balance seniors, but also younger adults and other adults to a greater extent, and the balance all in all is negative.

When there are fewer workers, the probability of an individual finding a job increases because there is less competition; conversely, the probability decreases when competition arises due to birth or migration. Similarly, future senior citizens secure themselves through pension contributions, which they can only successfully pay if they work throughout their lives.

Then there is always the risk of economic crises or outsourcing of jobs to other countries. Let's return to our hypothetical example of the 28-year-old man. He will work and work, but when he is 53, his company may experience a crisis in orders because competitors in Asia are producing more cheaply, forcing him to lay off some employees and then kick out those over 50. The 53-year-old will then apply for jobs elsewhere, but find nothing, and practically be on social welfare from the age of 53 for the rest of his life. So his balance may be also neutral at best or even negative.

When the population declines, it empowers the individual and gives him/her better opportunities on the job market, imo. Unfortunately, thinking at the macro level [economy as a whole] is so deeply ingrained that the individual level is often neglected.

Unlike China, India continues to experience population growth, but I don't think this will turn out well for India in the long term. Millions of Indians work in relatively low-paid jobs that could theoretically be easily automated by machines and industrial robots. Of course, the Indian government will be hesitant to promote these developments, as they will cost jobs, while the Chinese government, on the contrary, will be encouraged to continue investing in automation and industrial robots.

 

[50 Ft Queenie 640]

On 9/24/2025 at 10:17 PM, Economy said:

Do most who leave go to Australia? Id imagine easier immigration beween both Nations with Australia being a bigger higher income economy pushing for this

 

Analagus to Canadians fleeing to US in some sectors thay pay more there (mainly healthcare or IT related jobs where the pay gap is largest)

yes we do 

[Economy 52,861]

5 hours ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

.   
Let's imagine a 28-year-old man travelling to a foreign country to work there with his wife and settle down permanently. He will get married there and have two children. He will pay taxes and increase the population. After about 40 years, however, he will be old himself and incur costs as a recipient. His wife will have only worked part-time in this case, but will also claim a pension and care. Their children will also be old at some point and incur care costs, and as children they will also incur costs; schools and teachers have to be paid for.
According to your model, there must be constant follow-up migration (or persistently high birth rates, or both), and a cycle of never-ending population growth is necessary.

Of course everyone gets old eventually. My point is the ratio and change. It does not have to be growth. It could also be population stability.

 

The fact that shrinking demographics can be strenuous long term doesnt mean u have to have explosive growth forever, there is a middle ground....

 

As for what u said about southern Europe, if anything I think that only emphasizes my point that that older demographics dont necessairily have economic benefits. Southern Europe is very old yet it has not resulted in a lot of jobs for the youth

 

Which again i dont find surprising. I think retirees leaving more jobs for the youth is a complex issue at best... id only leaves more work per the remaining youth if consumption stays the same for less population, but it wont because demand and jobs will also shrink with it

 

Edit: Also i wanna point out i think this is true only because of our economic system, inequality and emphasis on funds growing to pay retirement. If it was purely main street economy alone and a more equitable society, i would agree with u more, because while wed have fewer workers relative to aged ones to care for, we would not require as much resources in construction or education as a percentage of output...

 

But the financial aspect in our economy the way we do things is a big thing!

Edited September 28, 2025 by Economy