Does crashing birthrate and aging society spell doom for Thailand?

[Ben Zioner]

Very easy to fix. Pay good family allowances, with a high bonus for the 3rd child. This worked in many European countries after WW  2. The mistake they made was to pay the allowances to non nationals as well. You can see the results now... 

[JensenZ]

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

No different from the rest of the world outside Africa (and THEIR turn will come as their economies are clawing their way up the status ladder).

 

The planet needs it that way even if particular countries don't like it. The future is smaller and multculti. Looks pretty good to me.

I read that Nigerians are the most educated migrants in the US, and Indian migrant families are the wealthiest.

 

Thailand won't be importing "quality" migrants to prop up the labor force. They will be taking anyone they can get because the "quality" migrants that are educated and willing to work hard will not be interested in migrating to Thailand as there are much better options. I had a conversation with an Indian family recently who set up a new restuarant in Pattaya. They are planning on moving to Australia and Thailand is just a stepping stone.

 

 Quality migrants know where they want to go and it's not Thailand.

Edited August 26, 2023 by JensenZ

[jvs]

56 minutes ago, retarius said:

If you sperm and reproductive capacity was damaged by the COVID vaccine or COVID itself, there is no guarantee that it will get better. 

Birthrate has been declining here long before Covid.

It is the economy that makes people decide against making a lot of babies.

 

[zhounan]

I think that all societies that are about to form a stable middle-class bourgeoisie face a reduction in population.

This, at least, is the data coming from more rich societies.

[spidermike007]

No. Falling birth rates are the best thing that can happen to a nation. And the world. There will be job shortages, which means higher pay. And some of that will be made up for by automation and AI, anyway.

 

Less resource consumption, less traffic, pollution, environmental degradation, etc. The list of benefits goes on and on and on. 

 

It is nations like Niger, Mali, Angola, Benin, Uganda, Chad, Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Liberia, Cameroon and Afghanistan that are of a far greater concern. Some of the poorest nations on earth, that can least afford exploding populations. One could argue their populations are both undisciplined and misled. There is another aspect to this, that is better left unsaid. 

[spidermike007]

24 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Very easy to fix. Pay good family allowances, with a high bonus for the 3rd child. This worked in many European countries after WW  2. The mistake they made was to pay the allowances to non nationals as well. You can see the results now... 

No, no, no. Encouraging more population is the last thing in the world anyone needs. Babies are so over rated, anyway. 

[JensenZ]

2 hours ago, jaideedave said:

Yes as a farang I also rolled up my sleeves for 2 shots.They made it so easy and I was lead to believe that I wouldn't be able to renew my 1 year visa unless I submitted.I call it coercion. No more injections for this fellow knowing what I do do now.

How many high up politicians/VIP,s have you heard of having side effects from this poison? Few and far between because they got saline or nothing.

The purebloods were right.

Unless you needed to travel there was no coercion to be vaccinated in Thailand "as a Farang". I had no problems at all remaining unvaccinated. I did consider the possibility that they might force foreigners to be vaccinated in order to get visa extensions, but there was no reason to rush to it.

 

We couldn't discuss the science on here or anywhere, because if we did, we would have been labelled conspiracy nuts, but there was plenty of good information available online if you had opened your mind to the possibility that vaccinations were not necessarily a good idea.

[rattlesnake]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

No. Falling birth rates are the best thing that can happen to a nation. And the world. There will be job shortages, which means higher pay. And some of that will be made up for by automation and AI, anyway.

 

Less resource consumption, less traffic, pollution, environmental degradation, etc. The list of benefits goes on and on and on. 

 

It is nations like Niger, Mali, Angola, Benin, Uganda, Chad, Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Liberia, Cameroon and Afghanistan that are of a far greater concern. Some of the poorest nations on earth, that can least afford exploding populations. One could argue their populations are both undisciplined and misled. There is another aspect to this, that is better left unsaid. 

This reasoning is flawed. In practice, what happens after a couple of decades of declining birth rates is that migrants are presented as the solution to compensate for it, as is happening in Europe. The same leaders who encouraged us to stop making babies are now telling us we need more immigration. And it doesn't result in increased wealth, quite the contrary.

[mfd101]

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The same leaders who encouraged us to stop making babies are now telling us we need more immigration. And it doesn't result in increased wealth, quite the contrary.

It does in Australia. Without the 200-300,000 migrants pouring in to Oz each year (mostly educated people in their 20s & 30s & 40s), the country would be way poorer.

[mfd101]

36 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Thailand won't be importing "quality" migrants to prop up the labor force. They will be taking anyone they can get because the "quality" migrants that are educated and willing to work hard will not be interested in migrating to Thailand as there are much better options. I had a conversation with an Indian family recently who set up a new restuarant in Pattaya. They are planning on moving to Australia and Thailand is just a stepping stone.

 

 Quality migrants know where they want to go and it's not Thailand.

That's the short-to-medium perspective. The medium-to-long perspective is likely quite different, depending on how Thailand navigates its socio-cultural problems (corruption, feudal hierarchy, abysmal education standards ... ).

[sammieuk1]

I have done my bit to repopulate but you will need to produce more food as he eats his own "considerable" bodyweight in anything he can get his hands on every 2 hours ???? 

[SoilSpoil]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

If it was, you wouldn't be here. If you want to live 3rd world, go to Africa and experience the real thing, then come back and assess Thailand.

 

A low birthrate is actually a sign that Thailand is approaching developed nation status. Compare Thailand with the Philippines. The median age there is 24, nearly half of Thailand, and in the 1970's their populations and birthrates were similar. Now the Philippines has nearly 50 million more people than Thailand with over 117 million currently.

Using GDP per capita as a factor of its world status, would place Thailand around 70th in the world (PPP not nominal). Hardly a developed economy. Now also throw the income distribution as variable in the mix and you could easily come to the conclusion that Thailand is 1st world for the happy few and 3rd world for the majority.

 

The reason why people have many or few children is correlated with one's household economy. No money, lots of children, lots of money, few children. Thailand is an odd one out here. Thailand's population is poor by definition, but its birthrate is on par with the modern richer countries. Total recipe for disaster in the present political set up. Who will support the older and progressively top of the population pyramid?

[JensenZ]

24 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

That's the short-to-medium perspective. The medium-to-long perspective is likely quite different, depending on how Thailand navigates its socio-cultural problems (corruption, feudal hierarchy, abysmal education standards ... ).

I have no idea what you're trying to explain. Please define "short", "medium" and "long" in the context of your reply. Just guessing, I would say my comment refers to a "medium-to-long" perspective. There will be a tremendous increase of migrants to take up the slack, but where from is the question. The Philippines with it's exponential birthrate and very young population will certainly be an important source.

[brianthainess]

53 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

No, no, no. Encouraging more population is the last thing in the world anyone needs. Babies are so over rated, anyway. 

I agree< I couldn't eat a whole one. ????

[SoilSpoil]

1 hour ago, jvs said:

Birthrate has been declining here long before Covid.

It is the economy that makes people decide against making a lot of babies.

 

Correct. Debt levels, health care and cost of education are the main worries for young couples to not get kids.

[SoilSpoil]

56 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

No, no, no. Encouraging more population is the last thing in the world anyone needs. Babies are so over rated, anyway. 

Getting babies is for most people the best thing that happens in their lives.

[madmitch]

The easiest way to maintain the workforce is to stop compulsory retirement at 60.

[mfd101]

1 minute ago, JensenZ said:

I have no idea what you're trying to explain. Please define "short", "medium" and "long" in the context of your reply. Just guessing, I would say my comment refers to a "medium-to-long" perspective. There will be a tremendous increase of migrants to take up the slack, but where from is the question. The Philippines with it's exponential birthrate and very young population will certainly be an important source.

What we are living through is the middle of the 1000-year process of the reunification of the human species, a process that started (symbolically, for Westerners at least) in 1492. This process has of course been under way for 2000 or 3000 years or more (eg Central Asia) in smallish numbers, but it has picked up speed over the last 200 or 300 years because of the spread of technology and increasing migrations which even out social & cultural differences over time.

 

To take one highly successful example of the process at work, Australia is a very different country now from what it was 100 years ago, and not just because of technology but because of the tides of migrants pouring in from all parts of the globe, building a very successful, culturally-enriched country in the process. Similar things could be said about Usofa, over a longer time frame but, in some ways, less successfully because of the different cultural origins of the European migrants from the C17th on making the integration process much more fraught (religion, slavery, a peculiar concept of 'freedom' etc). Europe is also struggling for a different set of reasons.

 

The point is that as these processes work their way at the global level, all countries are caught up in the same processes - technological change, international trade, worldwide effects of change (eg Ukraine War, climate change, demographics, economic influences ... ). The effect long-term is that social & cultural & ethnic differences slowly reduce.

 

There is no reason to expect that Thailand will escape these global changes over time. Yes, its starting point is a surprisingly inward-looking culture & society cut off from the rest of the world. But, as the recent election demonstrated with the influence of younger generations coming to bear, mobile in hand, things are changing even here.

[JensenZ]

12 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

What we are living through is the middle of the 1000-year process of the reunification of the human species, a process that started (symbolically, for Westerners at least) in 1492. This process has of course been under way for 2000 or 3000 years or more (eg Central Asia) in smallish numbers, but it has picked up speed over the last 200 or 300 years because of the spread of technology and increasing migrations which even out social & cultural differences over time.

 

To take one highly successful example of the process at work, Australia is a very different country now from what it was 100 years ago, and not just because of technology but because of the tides of migrants pouring in from all parts of the globe, building a very successful, culturally-enriched country in the process. Similar things could be said about Usofa, over a longer time frame but, in some ways, less successfully because of the different cultural origins of the European migrants from the C17th on making the integration process much more fraught (religion, slavery, a peculiar concept of 'freedom' etc). Europe is also struggling for a different set of reasons.

 

The point is that as these processes work their way at the global level, all countries are caught up in the same processes - technological change, international trade, worldwide effects of change (eg Ukraine War, climate change, demographics, economic influences ... ). The effect long-term is that social & cultural & ethnic differences slowly reduce.

 

There is no reason to expect that Thailand will escape these global changes over time. Yes, its starting point is a surprisingly inward-looking culture & society cut off from the rest of the world. But, as the recent election demonstrated with the influence of younger generations coming to bear, mobile in hand, things are changing even here.

We're talking about a very new development in world history. We're talking about inverted population pyramids and how to deal with rapidly aging populations.

Edited August 26, 2023 by JensenZ

[JensenZ]

13 minutes ago, madmitch said:

The easiest way to maintain the workforce is to stop compulsory retirement at 60.

What a great idea. Let's get all the old folk working on farms and in factories. It will slow production but kill them off faster and reduce the size of the plus-60 population.

[mfd101]

6 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

We're talking about a very new development in world history. We're talking about reverse population pyramids and how to deal with rapidly aging populations.

Migration flows reduce the effects of the inverted pyramid. At least in receiver countries. Not so good for the donor countries ... but even in Africa positive change is under way in many countries with booming economies (Ruanda, Kenya, Nigeria ... ). They may not be countries you or I would want to live in, let alone retire to, but they are slowly catching up and rejoining the mainstream at the global level.

Edited August 26, 2023 by mfd101

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Migration flows reduce the effects of the inverted pyramid. At least in receiver countries. Not so good for the donor countries ... but even in Africa positive change is under way in many countries with booming economies (Ruanda, Kenya, Niegeria ... ). They may not be countries you or I would want to live in, let alone retire to, but they are slowly catching up and rejoining the mainstream at the global level.

Donor countries do very well too. The migrants send their money back home to support their families.

[mfd101]

Just now, JensenZ said:

Donor countries do very well too. The migrants send their money back home to support their families.

Yes, and by donating younger people to the older receiver countries, they don't just help the inverted pyramid in the receiver countries, they reduce the huge pyramid in their countries of origin where, characteristically, babies per woman are still around 3 and only slowly edging down to the magic crossover number of 2.1.

 

The problem with all of that is that migrants tend to be the better educated, get-up-and-go (literally) individuals & families. People with energy, whom the donor country can't really afford to lose.

 

The one thing that follows from all of this is that, when it comes to demographics, it's pointless taking a short-term view of things (say, next 5 or 10 years). What will happen in 5 or 10 years, in every country, is largely already decided by the decisions people have already made and acted upon re baby-production. We know for instance how many babies were born last year in country X. We can therefore predict, taking life expectancy stats into account, how many young males will be on the streets in say 16-24 years, and therefore what levels of street crime are likely to be. We can predict what the levels of demand for education from primary to secondary to tertiary will be over the next 20+ years ... And so on.

 

And no country (not even Nth Korea) misses out on all of this.

[JensenZ]

27 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

it's pointless taking a short-term view of things (say, next 5 or 10 years).

It's the only way it can ever be. Changes are only made by politicians that are not going to be around much longer than 5 - 10 years. As you said, there is a long delay in how decisions made today will affect the future. The world will muddle through, one problem at a time. There are no people or organisations that can have any real effect on this global problem. All countries are too busy trying to solve day to day issues rather than worrying about what might happen 20 - 100 years in the future. Then of course there is no guarantee that any steps they take will produce the results they predict.

 

A good example is the one-child policy of China, started in 1980. The pains caused by this have only recently started to be felt. The government officials that started the program are long gone.

[Ben Zioner]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

No, no, no. Encouraging more population is the last thing in the world anyone needs. Babies are so over rated, anyway. 

Since my contribution to the arts, science and literature is inexistent, my life would have been totally empty without the 4 kids I have raised.

[SoilSpoil]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

It is nations like Niger, Mali, Angola, Benin, Uganda, Chad, Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Liberia, Cameroon and Afghanistan that are of a far greater concern. Some of the poorest nations on earth, that can least afford exploding populations. One could argue their populations are both undisciplined and misled. There is another aspect to this, that is better left unsaid. 

Only people of minor intellect would make such generalizations about the population of entire countries.

[mfd101]

5 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

It's the only way it can ever be. Changes are only made by politicians that are not going to be around much longer than 5 - 10 years. As you said, there is a long delay in how decisions made today will affect the future. The world will muddle through, one problem at a time. There are no people or organisations that can have any real effect on this global problem. All countries are too busy trying to solve day to day issues rather than worrying about what might happen 20 - 100 years in the future. Then of course there is no guarantee that any steps they take will produce the results they predict.

 

A good example is the one-child policy of China, started in 1980. The pains caused by this have only recently started to be felt. The government officials that started the program are long gone.

Yes, I entirely agree. When politicians intervene in this area, they have no idea what they're doing or what the longterm effects will be.

 

The only counter-example to that that I can think of MIGHT be Singapore ...  but it's so small & so competently governed in autocratic style that it probably doesn't have too many lessons to give the rest of the world.

[madmitch]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

What a great idea. Let's get all the old folk working on farms and in factories. It will slow production but kill them off faster and reduce the size of the plus-60 population.

I wonder what the usual retirment age is where you come from? In the UK it's now 66, rising to 57. 60 is too young, especially for most government employees. MPs are the exception of course!

[swerve]

Fewer people is good for the Earth.  A responsible country will try to keep it's population number from rising.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, swerve said:

Fewer people is good for the Earth.  A responsible country will try to keep it's population number from rising.

Might work if there was no social security or health benefits. Who pays for them when the percentage of elderly rises?