The Case

The debates surrounding the COVID-19 measures in 2021, and continuing to this day, have increasingly focused on what society can still endure, with particular attention given to the younger generation. There has been dramatic talk of a “lost COVID generation.” On TV, open discussions were held about whether it would be better to isolate the elderly so that younger people could reclaim their freedoms and get their lives back on track. Some even argued that older people—bluntly labeled as “dead wood”—should reflect on whether their lives have already offered enough. Meanwhile, young people, whose lives have yet to begin, should be prioritized, with the elderly stepping aside.

The argument is that the younger generation forms the economic engine: they work, they pay the taxes that support the rest of society. That’s partially true, at least regarding income tax. The employment rate for those aged 25 to 55 in the Netherlands is about 85%. For those over 55, it drops by 15%, and after that, it declines rapidly to zero.

But this perspective overlooks several things. While income tax contributions do decrease as people age—since they work less or not at all and often fall into lower tax brackets—older adults still pay VAT, excise duties, property taxes, water board levies, energy taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and even the much-despised wealth tax (Box 3) on savings, which were already taxed earlier. Of course, there are a few ultra-wealthy individuals for whom money seems to fall from the sky, but the resentment they inspire usually outweighs any financial gain from taxing this group more heavily.

Consider also that 4.5 million people over 60 already make up 25% of the Dutch population. This share is projected to rise significantly over the next 50 years to approximately one-third, assuming stable parameters. According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), this ratio, along with the total population size (estimated to range between 17.2 and 22 million), could vary considerably depending on factors like migration trends and preferences for having two children. A “dip” in autonomous population growth due to the COVID-19 crisis is already visible, as some people seem to be postponing their desire for children.

This makes it unlikely that the "economic engine" of 25-to-55-year-olds can sustain itself. After all, they also need to finance their own reproduction. The average Dutch two-parent household with two children spends 25% of its disposable income on raising them.

On top of this comes the climate crisis—if it is indeed universally regarded as a crisis. While global warming is an undeniable fact, some politicians question its causes (humans or overpopulation) or prioritize economic growth and prosperity over immediate climate action. Moreover, the effects of climate change are not always and everywhere negative. This ambiguity is eagerly exploited by climate deniers. However, CO2 emissions are just one consequence of humanity’s insatiable hunger for more—a hunger matched by a relentlessly growing global population. Other examples include the depletion of natural resources, massive pollution, the plastic soup in rivers, seas, and oceans, the extreme destruction of flora and fauna, the pressure on habitable space, and ongoing conflicts—all stark reminders of humanity's impact.

So...

We must start seriously thinking about building and maintaining a sustainable society, both locally and globally, where all generations—each with their own distinct characteristics—are given an equitable and meaningful place in society. Every generation has had, or will have, its strengths and weaknesses. Achieving this requires a clear understanding of the current size of these groups and how they will develop over the next 100 years, as people born today could easily live that long (barring disasters, wars, accidents, or inadequate healthcare, whether self-inflicted or otherwise).

The recent COVID-19 crisis may have sparked this critical thinking. It is, after all, deeply unpopular to condemn an entire generation—or multiple generations—simultaneously. As a result, spokespeople often circle around each other in these debates. They talk about long-term effects but mean short-term ones. This frequent misunderstanding hardens positions and even revives political ideologies we thought were left behind 75 years ago.