Its discussion of low birthrates and the declining population of Germany shows no evidence that news of the phenomenon has yet reached the paper. The article implies that a declining German population would be a serious problem.
It is not clear why a declining population would be a problem. Other things equal, a smaller population implies higher labor productivity and higher living standards. (It leads to a higher capital to labor ratio, as workers leave relatively low productivity jobs for higher paying, higher productivity jobs.) A smaller population will also impose fewer strains on natural resources and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Other things equal, if Germany has 10 percent fewer people, its emissions of greenhouse gases will be 10 percent less.
It is understandable that a German nationalist would upset by a declining German population, but it is not clear why anyone else would view it as a problem.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
