The problem of demographic decline

The problem of demographic decline is the term I have chosen for the joint problem of an aging population combined with a very low fertility rate. This problem is talked about by its many effects and causes but rarely in its totality.

On the effects side, the fact that there may not be the tax base to pay off the debt accumulated by governments today in the future let alone pay the age pension that future retirees expect is the problem that governments are trying to solve with immigration (which is in many ways exacerbating the causes of this problem). There are many Gen X's (the generation under Baby Boomers) in Europe that have already clued in to the fact that the State resources will have been exhausted by the time they reach retirement age and they will need to be able to support themselves entirely if they want to retire. Some of the creative solutions of this movement I have been inspired by in writing this Part 2.

Then there are the causes of this problem, some of which are well discussed in the political space. These are mostly confined to the material realm. The cost of housing crisis is the most talk about of these. The usual refrain being:

Of course, millennials aren't having kids if they can't afford a house to raise them in and the small apartments they can afford require two incomes to pay off the mortgage, women simply can't have enough time out of the workforce in order to have the number of kids they would like.

These causes are not to be dismissed. There is a lot to be said for the two-income trap combined with the price of housing. But the non-material factors actually have the greater effect on the number of children people are having. The fact that people are getting married later and later (which reduces the number of fertile years that women are in a stable relationship) combined with a general pessimism about the future are far more significant issues. Many women (and I speak personally here) would happily be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen if it was required in order to have children but that means finding a man who is also happy to sacrifice comfort for family. The fact is that finding a partner that wants to have a gaggle of children and also happy to live the lifestyle that would enable this is incredibility difficult without some kind of community around that supports this aim, and also sorts for potential partners.

Co-living

Co-living has been on the rise recently with companies like UKO and even the Meriton creating co-living spaces (it probably helps that the NSW government has decided that this is the housing of the future and have created incentives to encourage this).

The basic structure of co-living is that bedrooms are private and living spaces (such as kitchens and loungerooms) and amenities (such as washing machines and other big appliances) are shared. This is a very sound idea; how often do you actually use the washing machine? Once a week? Why not share it between 10 other people? The value of a shared kitchen I have already extoled in the last post, communal cooking and eating is a far better way to consume food.

The problem is that all the current "co-living" offers on the market cater to young singles as a way to overcome urban loneliness and retirees as a way to enable self-funded old-age needs when the pension is no longer viable.

But the co-living model would be far more useful if applied to multi-generational (or time of life) housing arrangements, and specifically could cater to families.

The other problem that these current models have is that they are expensive, or at least no cheaper than independent living.

I have been co-living curious for a while but a bedroom in a UKO arrangement in Sydney is the same rent as a small two-bedroom apartment in some cases. This is due to a few assumptions that these companies are working on which I doubt to be "true" (at least they are not true for me – but perhaps I am not the target market).

When you look at the "ethos" and business model of the current providers such as UKO, then it becomes clear that affordability is not exactly the goal, but rather convenience and the 'vibe' of the thing. All the co-living houses have full time "community managers" that organise the social life of the inhabitants. The concept being that the people attracted to co-living are lonely young professionals that are choosing to live with others for the company not for economic reasons. The other part of the business model that the likes of UKO and the future gen-x retirees share is an assumption that the inhabitants want services like cleaning, laundry, and personal training provided onsite for them rather than sharing these tasks or doing their own "adulting".

To be fair it is the provision of all these services that allow the companies that own these residences to turn a profit in addition to merely collecting rent. Co-living after all has become a business model.

But is possible (if not more apt) to run these as a co-ops with cleaning rosters and people volunteering their time to organise the living arrangements.

This is also why inter-generational living – or more aptly having different residents at different stages of life – is crucial as each phase of life comes with a different kind of surplus, retirees have time, young professionals have money, families have mothers that can take on a caring role (usually). The household can be arranged in such a way that people contribute what they are "rich in" (or have more of).

This kind of arrangement way very typical through most of human history.

To misquote Mary Harrington, the problem with conservatives is that they are not conservative enough, they are pining for the time when nuclear families was a thing but that was a very small blip in history, for most of the time we have been living in extended and multi-generational dwellings.

Co-living is just a modern term for the most traditional form of living. The problem with its current iteration is that it is forgetting that the value is not by socialising people that are in the same time of life (young professionals or retirees) but by bringing people together that are in very different stages of life because they can each provide something of value to the other.

Re-creating this style of living could do a lot for the material problems that demographic decline both creates and is caused by. It can (if managed correctly) make the cost of living and housing cheaper for the young people that are wanting to start families, it also will provide social support for the aging that can no longer rely on the government to take care of their needs as they age.

But for such an enterprise to be truly successful, in that it wouldn't just solve the material problems but also the non-material problems, there would have to be an overarching mission and vision. Co-living arrangements would not just need to be a marriage of convenience between people that want their material conditions ameliorated, but of people that want to create a community based on shared values.

You say cult, I say community

This is where people start to get worried. If you form a household or worse a whole community based on proscribed values that one has to hold to be a part of it then it opens the door to accusations of discrimination if not being a "cult". And, yes, if you want to form such a community then discrimination is required. There is a need to select for people that share the values of the community and also boot people out if they no longer share them.

But this is a much better starting point than the current co-living situation where the values are implicit – but not express – by the fact that companies like UKO post incessant social justice content on their socials, which makes me feel like I wouldn't be welcome in a co-living house managed by them. It would be much better if they made their offer expressly one of young professionals that shared the standard social justice views and values.

Aside from the fact that if you want to live with people harmoniously sharing values is a significant part of the equation, this also allows for these communities to be more than merely a convenient way of living. It also provides people with the possibility of finding deep connections with others that have all kinds benefits. On one side it makes it easier to find partners and form families and on the other it makes people far more charitable to those that need extra help.

Households and communities based on shared values recreates the situation that was common once upon a time that meant that young people didn't have to venture too far to find people that they could create a life with. In fact, they probably the neighbour share their values in times gone by. Ideally, by bringing families into these communities the next generation will have an easier time finding partners and having families which can care for their aging parents.

Likewise, the social infrastructure that used to help those that were old and out of work, like friendly societies, that wouldn't just offer material support (like the welfare payments that replaced friendly societies) but came with a lady would pop around with tea and biscuits for a chat. Bringing people together with a shared purpose and values creates strong in the flesh connections between people and engenders the most spectacular kind of charity towards others, the kind that doesn't just give in material things but also in spirit and time (things that we are far more impoverished in today).

The formation of families and care of those that need a bit of extra help are two effects that could be reproduced through strong bonds. Connection with other people is something that no government welfare programme can create and yet in many ways our lack of enduring bonds between people is what has caused much of the material problems associated with demographic decline.

The solution of co-living might be obvious – but you may be asking how the f*** do I find my people to form such a community? And I don't blame you. I feel exactly the same.

The problem with a collective solution, is that it requires you to find a collective willing to join together to solve a problem.