Dear Paul,

«Then you need some kind of incentive for people not to have children.»

I estimate the basic costs of raising a baby till they can support themselves, including schooling and healthcare and time off work without any subsidies, at around $2M.

Isn't saving this money a sufficient incentive?

There is also the social element, where public opinion changes and those still having children will be looked down at with contempt.

«not having children is counter productive, all it gives is a rapidly ageing population of non productive's.»

A vast proportion of present employment is unproductive anyway.
A lot of products and services are also superfluous and extravagant luxuries, some even harmful.
As people become older and wiser, they will no longer consume rubbish and support this parasitic class, who will therefore have to start doing something truly productive for living.

We will still need farmers, doctors, nurses and more aged-carers during the transition,
but many of these positions will be filled by present school-teachers and full-time parents.
While the number of capable home-builders will reduce, no new homes will be needed, only the old ones repaired, then eventually abandoned but there will still be plenty left around, same for cars, roads and power.
A fall in nominal productivity is not a bad thing when demand falls as well.
As population reduces and people get to know more each other in person, a larger portion of the economy will become informal, with increased volunteering and bartering.

Those of any age who had enough life on earth and wish to leave will be welcome, honoured and if necessary assisted, but there should be no pressure whatsoever on anyone to do so.

The end of this forum?
Not to worry - when population is reduced, we shall instead sit face to face in the respected forum of the elders in the city's gates.

There's the old fart, crying in his beer again, moaning about decent Australians, "dragging their sorry arses along the ground for another three years after next Saturday". I believe this bloke is totally negative, living in the past, totally regressive, living of aged welfare, provided by the very people he likes to run into the ground, the so called arse draggers. These old fart's need a kick up the arse to stop all their negativity and drubbing of Australia and it decent hard working people.

BTW, I've voted, I didn't vote for the LNP, but should by some catastrophic coincidence they win the election, it won't be the end of the world for me, or Australia. Imagine if that grand pair of fools, Palmer and Hanson were elected to run the country, now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!

Dear Paul,

«now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!»

Never mind Australia, could you please elabourate why that would be the end of the world for you personally?

Like or not the other controversial policies of this pair (Palmer and Hanson), and we really don't have to like them, especially not their nationalist rubbish, but at least they have it strongly on their agenda to keep cash. Labor supports cash lukewarmly, and while the Greens did not publish it officially, they told me privately that they do believe in cash. Only the so-called "Liberals" want to deny us the possibility to use cash and moreover push and incentivise businesses to use and force on us even more filthy digital technology - this is because they want to come down on tradies who don't pay their taxes, no matter who else will be hurt. I read their agenda and can summarise it in three words: "Punish, Punish, Punish" - I do find them much worse than that pair you seem to be so afraid of.

Hi once more Yuyutsu,

"now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!" What's called a throw away line, not to be taken literally but figuratively. As for cash, or a cashless society, I think there is a place for both cash and card at present. The disadvantage for the consumer is costs imposed by the seller. In the case of cash those costs are hidden in the transaction, as a cost of doing business. With cards that cost is up front and hopefully transparent to the consumer, unfortunately double charging by the seller is often the case, with a hidden cost in the transaction and a disclosed cost on the bill itself.

Had an interesting episode a couple of weeks back; Took my wife for a seafood lunch, very enjoyable, the meal cost $103, fair for what we had, the bill however was $107.50. I questioned the two charges of $3 credit card charge, when in fact I used a debit card, and $1.50 all cards charge on top, hummm. The girl was of little help, claiming that's what it is, and she could take it up with the owner later, as he was not there at the time. I said never mine, I wont be back, and for the $3 you have bought yourself an appropriate 1 star comment on social media from me.

Watched Dutton make an egg of himself on TV last night. The egg didn't know how much a dozen eggs costs at the supermarket, he said $4, wrong, then claimed the misses buys the eggs, that's the little woman's job, real men don't buy eggs, or some such crap! LOSER!