There are MANY issues with a demographic decline, "that fewer people can live of their wealth" is the least of it.
Less productive hands (60 year olds are not as productive as 20 and 30 year olds, especially in any industrial and labor intensive field, but also in intellectual ones - who would have thought?). More older people in need of health support. Less dynamic society. Slowing economy.
Beyond some (not very low) point it's also a self-reinforcing feedback point to relatively quick (in historical term) elimination of a whole people.
If the population is declining, it's not a problem that the economy is also shrinking, assuming the rates are equal. What matters is GDP per capita not decreasing, it doesn't matter if total GDP decreases because the population shrinks.
The only real issue is the demographic shift - and old people will bear the brunt of that, not younger ones.
From me what you mention seems to be derivative of the retirement argument where you clearly state that those not being able to work as much and have higher maintainance needs are the ones at disadvantage.
Living of wealth does not only mean your own wealth. That is also state wealth as in getting services redistributed to you.
>From me what you mention seems to be derivative of the retirement argument where you clearly state that those not being able to work as much and have higher maintainance needs are the ones at disadvantage.
I state the opposite: the younger people, who are being able to work as much, are the ones at a disadvantage.
That's regardless if the older people live off their wealth, have state services redistributed to them, or are just left to die. You could even confiscate their assets and kill those old people, it wont fix most problems associated with a shrinking demographics.
The economy has fewer productive people, so the (fewer) younger ones have to work more, while at the same time the economy contracts around them because of fewer consumers. Infrastracture built at X level of population also can't be maintained (due to cost, political justification, and capacity) as the population drops far below X.
The younger ones have to live in a staler society, which an increased average age (in some countries the average person is already over 45 - used to be the average person was merely over 20-25 in the same societies decades ago), more decisions taken by people on their way out and not to their benefit etc.
This is simply not correct.
The "the young people have to work more" argument is only valid as they are working for the older generation.
If we follow your proposal to euthanize every one over 60 then there really is no additional work.
>The "the young people have to work more" argument is only valid as they are working for the older generation.
Nope, that's just a tiny part of the problem.
An economy has a certain size, which depends on how many people support it (work) and how many people buy stuff (consume).
Fewer young people means (everything else being equal) less productivity. That's regardless if the old people are kept around or euthanized (!) or whatever.
Seems you forgot that declining fertility also means less young people each year, not just a larger percentage of older people. Even if you ...kill anybody above 40 years old, the number of 20 and 30 year olds will still drop because of the declining fertility.
Smaller worker and consumer base then means contracting economy.
I see what the issue is - you see a contracting economy as being a problem in itself. It is not, as another commenter pointed out.
Ah, ok, if another commenter pointed it out it's not a problem, I guess it's fine then!
Let's check back in 20 years.
Well, there is not reason to rewrite what another commenter wrote.
But I agree, let's check back in 20 years