this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
225 points (95.9% liked)
Greentext
4437 readers
1401 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You would want a slow decline though rather then a total plummet, otherwise you’ll end up with a bunch of older folks and not enough younger ones to support them.
It's cheaper to care for elderly than pay for raising children. Eventually the elderly die and those resources are freed up. But with children, you end up with adults using even more resources.
A huge factor for the Rennaissance was all the elderly dying in the Black Plague. Less people is better for workers because their labor becomes more valuable. It's only the owners that suffer in population decline because their servants are more expensive.
The children turned adults will generally be working and contributing to the economy though. Elderly will not and use up a metric ton of healthcare resources.
guess we need to host some hunger games then.