“Millennials are less sexually active as young adults than previous generations were. On the surface, that looks great: They appear to be less disposed toward risky behaviors, better at saying no to unwanted encounters, more motivated to study, work and make money, which could lead to more financially secure, happier families. Yet there could be an ugly side to this that could turn what looks like increased responsibility into a demographic threat. “
Although I’ve understood the principles that older populations spend less, and that a human population peaks and then declines towards a more stable level (stable, not necessarily sustainable), the above article still surprised me. I think it’s because of the timing: I’d not have guessed this could happen to a generation as early as the Millennials.
Perhaps the speed of this development is a logical consequence of the (potentially) better availability of data via the internet.
“Like most of the Western world, Sweden has a birthrate of less than two children per woman (propped up by much higher birth rates among the country's growing Muslim community), and it might like young people to be a little more irresponsible, as they used to be in an age before Tinder and ubiquitous online porn.”
If true, then it suggests that the author of the piece holds the assumption that the economic development of 1945-1970 should continue in perpetuity. As if it would be possible to do.
But, in reality, we are going to be much better off to live without our means instead of carrying on spending on credit laundered via a public sector welfare state.