Those “experts” seem to be arriving at those conclusions by very economically ignorant methodology. And in fact that whole thing is incredibly contradictory. I didn’t hear the guy in the video say anything about the subject introduced by the title of the article. In fact he spends the entire first half of the video talking about how the birth rate and fertility rate (of Australia, anyway) are going up.
And then something he did mention (emphatically) was that this kind of shift is just a matter of personal preference, and “you can’t entertain a situation where governments were making rules about whether you could or whether you couldn’t.” He elaborates on this for basically the rest of the video saying that the State has no place in interfering and issuing mandates and the like in this area.
Then the entire article below the video goes on to say how “federal and state governments should aim to lift [the retirement age] to 65 by using sticks and carrots to make people put off their retirement, and get retired people to return to work part-time.”
This of course as a reaction to the notion that (despite a shrinking population, which, don’t forget is supposed to be the subject of the article), “most people will be living in cities, and in developing countries - and they will consume twice as much food and water as the world now produces”. This of course—as the conventional economic illiterate wisdom would dictate—“rais[es] serious issues of sustainability.”
Seems to me that
-
That article does more to agree with Freedom4Me73986 than refute him.
-
Both he, and the authors of that piece need to watch the video I posted above. (As well as this one.)