From "U.S. Population Growth Has Nearly Flatlined. Is That So Bad?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell (in the NYT).
१५ सप्टेंबर, २०२२
"To see how population stagnation or even decline need not spell disaster, you can look at countries where it’s already occurring..."
"... as Daniel Moss... did last year. Take Japan: 'Despite the caricature of the country as an economic failure in the grip of terminal decline, life goes on,' he wrote. 'True, growth in overall G.D.P. has been fairly anemic in past few decades, but G.D.P. per capita has held up well.' What’s more, he added, Japan’s unemployment rate is very low and has remained so throughout the pandemic.... Japan’s example lends some credence to the view of Kim Stanley Robinson, a widely acclaimed science-fiction writer, who believes that an aging population with a smaller work force could actually lead to economic prosperity. 'It sounds like full employment to me,' he argued.... 'The precarity and immiseration of the unemployed would disappear as everyone had access to work that gave them an income and dignity and meaning.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
Their GNP has flat-lined "for a few DECADES", but; Not To Worry!
a FICTION writer says "this could actually be 'a good thing'"
Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????
As long as you don't care about Social Security being solvent or retirements being funded flat lining population isn't all bad.
The people that post stupid shit like this are economically ignorant fools.
The people that read and believe what the NYT's says and think the NYT's gives them useful information are just fucking idiots.
an aging population with a smaller work force could actually lead to economic prosperity.
'It sounds like full employment to me!' he argued....
Absolutely! Once the majority of your population is retired, and over the age of 70...
Those few people still of working age, will have their work cut out for them !!!
"U.S. Population Growth Has Nearly Flatlined. Is That So Bad?"
Japan is a bad example. In the USA, look at the demographics of who's being born and who's dying, then ask that question again.
Note to the NYT. Yes- it is bad. Your shrinking labor force will not be able to produce those goods and services you require for your daily amenities, let alone things you really need. Like energy production, as an example. And the reduced labor force will be paying in less to the tax base which is certainly required to hold up that house of cards known as our Government. And within that Government lies your nationalized healthcare, your soon to be nationalized education, and of course, your social security. There will not be enough to support it, or the military to protect it and you.
We're not Japan. We're much larger. And the thing about Japan is that they've already started seeing impacts. And those will increase over time. It takes a few generations to complete the grind down to zero. We're early in. But this is going to have much more of an impact than 'Climate Change'.
PS- The author, Spencer Bokat-Lindell, graduated from Yale in 2017. He's a kid. He knows literally nothing. By the time he's 65 and collecting Social Security, he may be viewing things in a different way. For him, history started 20-30 years ago.
There’s no flatline. We’re either growing or we’re becoming extinct. Just look at every biological organism ever. The persistent belief we’re special is going to be our downfall.
US population hasn't been accurately counted. So how would the New York Times know?
There are millions and millions of uncounted people in the United States illegally. Our population hasn't declined. Our national leaders won't have that. A declining population puts upward pressure on wages.
Are wages increasing? Heavens no. Actual wages (wages which take into account inflation) are falling in the United States, due specifically to the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and further Southern American countries.
This is by design. If wages go up, people are now free to tell the government to fuck off. Politicians (driven by business interests) don't want you to have FUCK YOU money. Because they know what you'll do with it. You'll quit working for slave wages.
As Japan's population shrinks, it remains distinctly Japanese. As ours will shrink...not so much.
Japan is a bad example.
"Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????"
Not just any fiction writer. A widely-acclaimed fiction writer.
Spreading optimism hope and purpose sounds like more Stephen Pinkerton optimism.
I thought robots were going to end work? Gotta ways to go on that.
Quite quitting was discussed after our swim team workout. Our coach nodded over to the two lifeguards zeroed in on their phones. The pool was empty, but they gotta always be looking.
Ann Althouse said...
Not just any fiction writer. A widely-acclaimed fiction writer.
I stand corrected Professor Althouse :)
I don't buy it.
Either that or every freaking person is moving to my state.
Colorado sucks. Tell your friends.
What is it with social scientists - and that includes climate "scientists" these days, based on their rhetoric - who take a snapshot of the present and, depending on the result they want, assume things will stay ever thus (as here), or else assume that this is the best of all possible worlds and is hanging by a thread (as with global climate)?
American population growth has "nearly flatlined." It hasn't "flatlined," though - in fact it's been on a downward trend for decades. If it truly flatlined, that could be a good thing, as it could mean the bottom of the curve or at least that nothing worse was going to happen.
But instead, it's still going down, which means fewer young healthy people supporting more old and/or permanently disabled people. "Full employment" - oh joy! Everybody get to work supporting me as I enter my golden years. And by the way, your own retirement is going to have to be pushed down the line a bit.
The depression that accompanies unemployment is real, of course. But so is the depression of working more and longer and taking home less. And the latter lasts longer and affects everyone. (Or are they counting on the robots to save us all from drudgery? That seems to me to be one of those New Money Theory things.)
And then there's demographic collapse, which - paywall, I'm just going on the basis of the headline - this article seems to assume won't happen, as "flatline" is "no further change." But we've seen societies die out. Is it a good thing to hope that our society is one of them?
Isn’t it great that Japan solved unemployment by having fewer people to employ? Soon they will be plagiarizing Jonathan Swift. Excuse me, remaking “A Modest Proposal” into live action non-fiction.
Not just FICTION writers.
SCIENCE FICTION writers.
Trust the SCIENCE.
At some point in the future, someone will see the islands of Japan as open to conquest.
When a culture stops reproducing itself, it dies off.
A growing population is a double-edged sword: More labor to exploit resources and build things, but more competition for available resources. From what I've read, Europe experienced a higher standard of living after the plague swept through and killed "half" the population in the middle ages. Those left alive were (1) physically stronger and (2) had a larger slice of the pie because of the dead people's newly-empty farms, houses, etc.
Given the extreme automation of the current age, such as increasing use of robotic farming, trucks, etc., humans will likely be fine. The industrial-age population boom was an anomaly that followed humans (1) learning how to mine fossil fuels on a large scale, (2) the invention of labor-saving machines, and (3) improved medical care that kept more people alive. Therefore, some of the people alive now would have died out before modern medicine. A slow and comfortable die-off of today is better than what would have happened to them in other eras (or in some impoverished countries today).
But, let's hope that Bill Gates or others don't spread some lab virus that wipes out all the surplus people in one fell swoop...again?
We will see. The population age profile may matter more than population size unless we are planning for war. OTOH, war seems endemic to the species. A declining population may also be an symptom of cultural malaise and indicate upcoming social problems. I'm more concerned with the growing lack of self sufficiency at the moment. The international situation and transportation network is rather delicate and should not be relied upon.
Demographics are like a tsunami: Trends, either increases or decreases, start out as just a little bulge on the horizon but by the time they reach the shore they are an unstoppable tidal wave. The girls what weren't born this year definitely won't be having babies in 20 or 30 years, and the babies they won't have definitely won't be having more babies 30 years after that.
Rarely have I seen more people put their heads in the sand over such a vital issue.
A handmade tale of "burdens", excess deplorables, and immigration reform, too. We can outsource that. We can insource that. You didn't birth it. How dare you!
As I tell my students every semester - I need you to do better than I ever did so that I can retire in the manner into which I would like to become accustomed.
It would be easier for them if there were more of them.
The People and "our Posterity" are highly overrated. GDP, too, is highly overrated. In an isolated frame, we are Green, sustainable, and forward-looking. Productivity is insect politics. Bring out your "burdens"!
Count me among those who wonder if it's bad. I think anyone over 60 assumes it's bad because they get to reap the benefits of a growing population (higher taxes, social security kept afloat for a few more years) and were raised in a world where more kids was made equivalent to thriving.
I'm in my late 40s, live in areas that are way too crowded for the environment to sustain without importing water and other resources.
I also studied history, and the black plague that killed off quite a number of people in Europe is at least partly responsible for the major political and social reforms that helped provide a voice to the working class and helped create a strong middle class, because the higher classes couldn't just treat people like trash to throw out and pay poorly. Which is why a lot of Democrats like illegal immigration because they get that experience again.
Meanwhile, look at the places that have the highest populations and most growing, they're not exactly hotbeds of social thriving and economic success.
Shrinking population follows the rule of supply and demand. If there's less workers, the workers there are get paid and treated better. The ones who lose in that are the wealthy and privileged who just want to have their benefits and need more people to keep supply high and demand low.
Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????
I for one am eager to hear what Stephen King and Margaret Atwood have to say about the important issues of the day.
I wonder how the Japanese Social Security system is faring. Not so well, from what I understand. Neither is ours.
It occurs to me that in my prior comment, I was misusing statistics. Flatlined growth RATE - which I think is what they mean - isn't the same thing as flatlined GROWTH in plain old number of people.
The point remains, though: fewer people working to support more people not working.
In a fantasy world, you can justify anything.
Full unemployment is a nice to have, but it is hardly the only measure of economic health or even one of the most important measures. A land with a fully employed workforce of 10 people who have to support a thousand people is likely to fail and fail badly. It is also likely to be far less productive than a land with 50% unemployment but has a million employed workers. Full employment is a percentage, and percentages and raw numbers are very different things.
There's also the matter than there is more to the world than economics. Your full employment does not mean much when your neighbor invades and conquers everything because you have no population to man the walls and not enough production to equip them anyway. Taking other people's stuff and protecting your stuff from other people is and always has been the prime concern of societies, and societies with low populations tend not to survive.
But the fools at the New York Times quoting other fools is standard practice. It does feel nice than in a world that is falling apart that some things never change.
Japan has an educated population with a mostly homogenous culture.
Diversity is not its strength. Prosperity is its strength.
The only solution allowed is to anti-colonize and import more lawless Third Worlders who hate us. It's worked out great so far.
These stories are always interesting in how they reinterpret failure to mean success.
Is Inflation really so bad?
Are open borders really so bad?
Is having a senile President really so bad?
Is rioting in cities really so bad?
Well, until it hits certain narratives -
Temperatures are rising, we're all doomed
States are imposing an abortion regime [similar to Europe], we're doomed
GOP governors are busing immigrants to our vacation towns, we're doomed
Buckhwheathikes is absolutely correct.
I tried to quantify the entire cost of the one crime committed (thankfully prosecuted this time) by a prolific illegal immigrant rapist neighbor.
Statistically likely, he has committed many dozens or hundreds of these crimes against many victims. At least he is behind bars, until the ACLU types can spring him again.
I can say with confidence that he has rarely worked and never paid taxes, as records indicate he lived off his baby mommas' benefits (nice car, though), but we have unambiguously already spent north of a million dollars on just one case out of the multiple layers of welfare and medical care for the wives and daughters he has impregnated, a case which (rightfully) included multiple investigators, social workers, court and school employees, justice system infrastructure, attorneys, judges, court expenses, and, ongoing, the costs to incarcerate him. And we will pay millions more to imprison him, deal with appeals, psychological care for his victims, and decades of the state supporting his multiple and tragically scarred and incestuous offspring. Screw the pig mothers who let this happen. They belong in prison too. But instead we will pay their living expenses forever as they have more children with very bad men.
That's one illegal. I'm no Steve Sailor or John Derbyshire, but I can do math and have done this exercise before. And the rapist's equally thuggish brothers still semi-crash next door (separated only by a goat enclosure), with at least two prepubescent girl children still in the house.
Now, do the multiplication. And pray for those children. We need to import more of this? Trust me, we have enough of our own. I will personally pay to deliver this mess to Obama or Biden's front stoop.
Not the children though. Not the innocents.
We could barely afford this before Bush 1 opened the floodgates.
"Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????"
If you read the NYTs, you are doing it on a daily basis.
The biggest problem is that so far no economist has developed an understanding of how an economy can work without constant growth. There's a Nobel for the taking, but it will require real independent thought, which is not something higher education promotes or rewards these days.
"PS- The author, Spencer Bokat-Lindell, graduated from Yale in 2017. He's a kid. He knows literally nothing. By the time he's 65 and collecting Social Security, he may be viewing things in a different way. For him, history started 20-30 years ago."
He is too ignorant to realize that my generation will be the last to be able to get social security. Social Security is projected to go broke in the near future.
"...who believes that an aging population with a smaller work force could actually lead to economic prosperity. 'It sounds like full employment to me,' he argued."
Well...let's do some projections. Today's yoots, through covid, learned of the concept of 'work from home'. While some of them actually stayed working hard, more of them found that they could do less, spend their days doing mostly what they wanted- and still get paid, either by their employer or the Great & Good Government which prints money forever. And there would be no repercussions to this. And so they moved onto the next step. Leaving work entirely, or staying on the payroll in a 'Quiet Quitting' fashion. And so in a year or two, once the rest of the baby boomers have retired, you'll have a large sector of the workforce staying at home and getting paid by the Great & Good Government, another large sector showing up for work, but doing just the bare minimum to look like they are participating in a job. And you'll have a much smaller group, mostly first generation immigrants or immigrants here on work visas, working hard to produce and drag things forward.
Like Sisyphus, it'll be a titanic job to move civilization forward with a smaller, less engaged population. But then, the author of this article may just be looking at keeping the status quo (quiet quitting) as a good thing. Why worry about moving forward- progressing- when you can get paid for staying home and playing video games? Who needs marriage, kids? They'd just get in the way. Someone order Uber eats for me.
Flat/declining population is a problem for the social welfare state. The social welfare was imposed at the start of an inflection in human history. Disease control and sanitation was permitting more children to survive to adulthood by the 1930s. After WWII, modernity spread around the world with mortality limitations on demographics being overcome. The Baby Boom generation were mostly a result of this, not really so many more births than more children surviving childhood. By the 1960s, fertility management moved to the fore for demographic control.
With children more likely to survive, it makes sense to have fewer children and invest more in them, i.e., more going to college, etc. Children are the leading cause of poverty as they are expensive and their care interferes with adult earning potential, i.e., more time away from work for child issues. Children were no longer an asset to the family "business" such as being a worker on a farm. None of that is terrible, just reality. So logically, fewer children invested in more heavily is a rational response. Maybe the child will help the parent when they are adults, but there is no enforceable obligation.
The problem is the social welfare state was created on the idea that people would keep having dozens of kids to feed the system. As per usual, the "experts" never considered that the populace might alter their behavior as fertility rather than infant/child death became the controlling factor in family planning.
Putting it simply, in an embedded peasant economy, when the unit of production and consumption is the family household, it is sensible to have as large a family as possible, to work the land and to protect against risk in sickness and old age. To increase reproduction is to increase production. Yet as Jack Caldwell and others have shown, when the individual becomes integrated into the market, when wealth flows down the generations, when the cost of education and leaving for an independent economic existence on an open market occurs, children become a burden rather than an asset.23 In other words, capitalistic relations combined with individualism knocks away the basis of high fertility, and if this is combined with a political and legal security so that one does not have to protect oneself with a layer of cousin, the sensible strategy is to have a few children and to educate them well.
A low-pressure demography means that a society avoids the situation where extra resources are automatically absorbed by population expansion. As Malthus argued, the only force strong enough to stand against the biological desire to mate and have children, was the even stronger social desire to live comfortably and avoid poverty.
--Chapter 8 of The Invention of the Modern World by Alan Macfarlane
an aging population with a smaller work force could actually lead to economic prosperity. 'It sounds like full employment to me
This is simply idiotic. Full employment of a shrinking share of the population still means paying an increasing share of your wages to pay into the government-funded pension system unless the growth in wages sufficiently outruns the growth in the retired population relative the wage-earning population.
Unfortunatley for Japan, its ratio of the age 65+ population to the working-age population is 75%. In the US it's 49%.
The precarity and immiseration of the unemployed would disappear as everyone had access to work that gave them an income and dignity and meaning.
Bullshit. There will always be a large group of people who have no interest in productive work, and no qualifications for it. There will always be a large group of people who prefer criminal activity and fraud to work. (These two groups will often intersect)
Fuji Apples to Oranges.
Japan is homogeneous, its collective IQ is very high, and its work ethic is very strong.
Not exactly a description of the United States...
Would Japan be in a better position if they allowed 2 million extra people in every year like the US?
Japan's economy runs on exports. The bigger test for them will come when their customers' populations start to drop.
Also, Japan does not have nearly the extensive social security systems that other Western countries do, so the growing population of elderly is living off its own savings (or dying in poverty). It isn't relying on transfer payments from younger generations.
"Is that so bad?"
Depends: Are our children learning valuable thinking skills, math, history, english, science, etc., or is all their educational time being wasted on playing make-believe with their pronouns, and just how terrible Thomas Jefferson was for having sex with his slaves?
Which course will more reliably lead to a secure economic future for the country? Hint: One of them *is* "so bad".
"Japan is a bad example. In the USA, look at the demographics of who's being born and who's dying, then ask that question again."
Not only that but Japan essentially prioritizes racial homogeneity as government policy, to say nothing of its culture. By contrast, America has an entire industry (with additional substantial buy-in from media and politics) devoted to keeping racial divisiveness alive.
I recall studies/surveys of Sweden over the past couple of decades, as it went from a racially/culturally homogenous polity where people were highly favorable to "paying forward" into the generous welfare state that took care of elders, to an increasingly heterogenous/mixed state where questions like, "Why should I?" gained vociferousness.
Anyone who's selling Japan as the hallmark example in this discussion is definitionally dishonest or too ignorant to warrant attention.
I'm surprised the NYT would quote Spider Robinson. Robinson is well known for his fawning adoration of the self-described radical libertarian Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein's novella, "By His Bootstraps" presents a future where all humans are slaves except for the one white man, who through the magic of time travel, rules the planet. Heinlein was called a racist and a fascist. Spider's background should have been thoroughly checked, apparently it wasn't. I'm a RAH fan also and therefore a libertarian, and so it goes.
It's Mark Steyn's line: the future belongs to those who show up.
The author brushes off the decades of economic malaise. I wonder how much he really knows first hand about the results of declining and aging population in Japan. It was a political/social decision to avoid making up for population loss through immigration. The resulting economic mediocrity that he says isn't too bad is the result of that policy.
"..prior to the pandemic, Japan began to tentatively embrace immigration as part of the solution to population retreat, as I’ve written."
Decades later, they realize it can go on. The aging population issue makes it so. Imagine if Japanese companies did repatriate income from investments made in other countries. The problem is real and he can't change it with his words. Having said that, I do believe that sacrificing some economic growth by limiting immigration may be a better choice. Making up for the economic decline caused by a declining birthrate via immigration isn't 100 percent effective unless the pool of immigrants matches the existing society in terms of education, skills, and worth ethic.
There are two phases of life- growth and decay. Decay is where we are. You are either growing or dying. NYT loves death.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????"
Not just any fiction writer. A widely-acclaimed fiction writer."
Bet you'll never see the NYT quote Heinlein on government efficacy.
Pete Zeihan noted in his most recent book that not only was the Global Order of 1945-2019 (or so) an almost unprecedented period of easy international trade, it was also a bit of a demographic marvel.
At exactly the time many First World countries were finishing rebuilding after WWII, hitting their productivity peak in middle-age, and starting their slow demographic implosion from not having enough kids, the Third World was rapidly industrializing and providing the consumption that wasn't happening internally in most First World countries. That happy equilibrium is going to be upset now that most of the First World countries are aging into retirement and death.
Code: Illegal entrants by the millions = You need to be OK with it.
Tom T. said...
Japan's economy runs on exports. The bigger test for them will come when their customers' populations start to drop.
It largely used to run on exports but as evidenced by my 2009 Toyota Tacoma, now parked about 130 miles from where it was built, the Japanese and others have been near-shoring their manufacturing operations for decades as their population declined. They'll still be impacted by a declining customer base but by then they probably won't (be around to) care.
@David53 I believe the NYT is quoting Kim Stanley Robinson (anti-capitalist) rather than Spider Robinson (Robert Heinlein fan).
fiction writers - opinion
1. literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.
2. something that is invented or untrue.
Dictionary definitions are numbered merely to indicate their frequency of use, no more.
Thus, it is the opionion of this dictionary that, due to the workings of such as Spencer Bokat-Lindell, in short order the order of those definitions will be reversed.
It is also our opinion that regardless, the value of the type of fiction will remain ranked as the current definition usage indicates.
'Would Japan be in a better position if they allowed 2 million extra people in every year like the US?'
I am dreading that possibility.
The culture would be forever lost.
Visit Japan in the next few years if you've ever wanted to go.
Even 7 or 8 years ago I could see how foreigners were eroding the culture...
@ Lem Ozuna from the Braves - "We’re either growing or we’re becoming extinct. Just look at every biological organism ever."
No population of biological organiams grows forever. None. Nada. Zilch. Most bounce around some average. Those that explode one year usually crash shortly thereafter.
wants - definition
VERB
have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for: "I want a Lamborghini."
NOUN
a desire for something: (see above)
Commonly mistaken for needs.
When this mistake occurs, it screws up the social and economic works.
When properly defined it allows one to live comfortably on what others (mistakenly) believe to be a subsistence level. (eg: It reduces the pursuit of fashion.)
Richard said...
"Do i have that right? we're openly relying on FICTION writers????"
If you read the NYTs, you are doing it on a daily basis.
Excellent.
IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke's 'ideal global population' was 200 million (or less?)
Make of that what you will.
Someone mentioned Japan's weakness in regard to defense from invasion. Given that the place has essentially no natural resources except the orderly, hard-working and intelligent Japanese, I wonder what a conqueror would gain.
Spider Robinson and Kim Stanley Robinson are not the same person. I never heard of Spider, but KSR is a "democratic" socialist who looks forward to the demise of capitalism.
Prosperity may or may not be strength. It has contributed to some serious division in the US. Homogeneity may make Japan stronger, but so do the limits on individualism, or at least the fact that strivings for individual identity aren't automatically translated into politics (but maybe that is precisely because their population is homogeneous).
Japan may turn a lot of jobs over to robots, and hope that anime and videogames and the social welfare system will keep young people who don't make it into the workforce happy. The US may rely on cheap immigrant labor or hope that we can continue to benefit by off-shoring all of our productive work. There are problems with both strategies, but the Japanese strategy looks sounder than ours.
Tina Trent writes: "a case which (rightfully) included multiple investigators, social workers, court and school employees, justice system infrastructure, attorneys, judges, court expenses, and, ongoing, the costs to incarcerate him. And we will pay millions more to imprison him, deal with appeals, psychological care for his victims,"
Listen Tina, the thing you aren't grasping is that every single one of those activities contributes to the US GDP. Therefore, they are all Good Things. You simply must get your mind out of the rut!
Richard, My wife and I, currently semi-retired, planned from decades ago to retire without SS and without Medicare. It's gravy that they are still there, now, but our powder is still dry, as they say. We have certainly argued to our kids that they should plan similarly.
Spider R. and Kim R. could hardly be more different, ideologically or stylistically.
That which cannot continue, won't. Simple as that.
Hopefully I'll be dead before "won't" gets too far along.
Ralph L,
The only solution allowed is to anti-colonize and import more lawless Third Worlders who hate us. It's worked out great so far.
See, this is what irritates me about all the people who say the "Great Replacement"/Grand Remplacement is a demented conspiracy theory. They say that, but also say:
(1) Americans aren't producing enough progeny; and
(2) There are tons of Third World people dying to come to the US. Let them all in and see our population-deficiency troubles magically disappear!
IOW, we should "replace" the babies our citizens aren't having with the surfeit of babies that people in the Third World are having. I wish someone would explain to me how this is not, exactly, the Grand Remplacement. A dearth in population born of the US as it currently is will be replenished by people, overwhelmingly poor, from outside the US. I am not saying anything for or against this proposal; but I am saying that this is the Grand Remplacement.
Planned Parenthood cum planned parent/hood in a forward-looking ethical prescription of dysfunctional orientations and wicked solutions.
Given that the place has essentially no natural resources except the orderly, hard-working and intelligent Japanese, I wonder what a conqueror would gain.
Braying rights. Redistributive change. Retributive change. Take a knee, beg, roll over, good boy.
"There will not be enough to support...the military to protect (us and ours)."
The military hasn't protected us in decades, and prior to that last time, our military was not the massive standing force it became latterly. In short, historically, defense of our nation has rarely depended on the military. It has more often (as today) been a tool of aggression.
"US population hasn't been accurately counted. So how would the New York Times know?
"There are millions and millions of uncounted people in the United States illegally."
If the US population hasn't been accurately counted--and how do you know that to be true?--how do you know there are millions and millions" of uncounted illegals in the US? How many millions and millions? Tens of millions? 100s? Thousands? Show your sources. Oh, right! The US population hasn't been accurately counted, so there are no sources to support any claim as to how many illegals reside in the US. They're uncounted...thus, not known!
As the Scarlet Pimpernel would oft remark: There is nothing quite so bad as that which is "not so bad".
So we'll watch Japan go the way of Easter Island. A lovely little museum. An attraction.
You need a tag for other-than-that-how-was-the-play-Mrs.-Lincoln.
"U.S. Population Growth Has Nearly Flatlined. Is That So Bad?"
Nonsense. Population growth is essential to prosperity. If the U.S. could maintain a population growth rate of just 5% a year, just imagine how prosperous our descendants would be in 500 years. All 12 billion billion of them. Might be hard to find a parking spot, though.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEAST lefties, continue killing all your children and please consider cutting your carbon footprint to zero.
Thanks in advance!
"There will always be a large group of people who have no interest in productive work, and no qualifications for it. There will always be a large group of people who prefer criminal activity and fraud to work. (These two groups will often intersect)."
Yes, usually at local, regional, and global gatherings of corporate CEOs, scions of old wealth, stock exchange financiers, bankers, and directors of military and intelligence agencies. (Oh yes, and at Trump family holiday gatherings. Can't leave out the obvious and cheap--but true--laugh line!)
Understanding Spider Robinson starts with knowing he wrote an essay titled "Rah, Rah, R.A.H."
Shrinking population in the future, rather than the past, also benefits from technology that can serve in key areas of service and productivity, thus taking away jobs from people who would have previously served in them. That latter results in added social nets that now, like it or not, take massive tax investment. We can also look at shrinking demand for housing that takes existing supply for a much, much less demand, dropping prices to become affordable for a much higher percentage, which leads to more investment in other areas and in one's own community.
The only benefit to a growing population is social security, but that bubble will burst at some point no matter what, and it's asking present and future generations to become indentured servants to older generations who got us into the present mess. If you made bad contract with the generations before you who likewise got us into this mess, then it's like those kids graduating with gender studies degrees and insist you pay for their student loans. No thanks!
The NYT does not necessarily publish either fiction or fact, but rather a handmade tale spun to steer perception. Caveat emptor.
"Is That So Bad?"
Reading the news today, I'm struck that Democrat politicians at all levels are very concerned about the US population shrinking that they want to import as many people across our southern border as they can. They also want the current population to be able to abort as many babies as possible.
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy was masterful, but his later work became tedious to me, bleak, apocalyptic, and slow.
Heinlein's solution was high growth with out migration to the stars where all you needed was hard work and character to be a simple farmer or miner on a distant world in an inexhaustible universe.
Asimov preferred a limited few living alone on your own 100 sq miles with no requirement for labor due to robots and automation. Only the smart need apply.
The Russian way is to die early of drink in desperation that there is nothing for you so you don't reproduce either. So population drops.
China tried limiting births and realized that was a mistake.
India is laissez-faire and depends on exporting people to other countries.
The west is full of greedy short term thinkers who don't want to make sacrifices to have children and think they will be young forever.
Without better automation a declining population results in a lower standard of living, tech wise.
"Is that so bad?"
Not if you're Amish. Are you Amish?
@Ficta
Thanks for the gentle correction. As Fred and others have pointed out Kim and Spider are very different people. I should have done some more research before publishing the crap comment I first posted.
"There will always be a large group of people who have no interest in productive work, and no qualifications for it. There will always be a large group of people who prefer criminal activity and fraud to work."
Yes, but the Constitution requires we have a Congress, so we'll just have to make do with this group.
Can someone explain to me how it is possible for social security to "run ot of money"? It can be defunded by congress, as can any program including the Navy, food stamps and solar subsidies.
But to "run out of money" it would have to be funded like a quasi insurance program with social security taxes funding SS benefits.
It would also be unconstitutional. Or would have been before the Robert's court.
Social security is a welfare program, pure and simple. Just like food stamps. Just like Section 8 housing. Just like WIC.
Fdr sold it as insurance but he made Clinton look like an honest man by comparison. Social Security "Insurance" is just another of his lies.
(continues)
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
(Continued)
Fdr's team knew it would never pass constitutional muster as an insurance program.
SecLabor Frances Perkins braced Justice (later chief Justice) Harlan Stone at a tea party at his house. She asked how they could finagle SS past the court:
... the Justice looked around to see if anyone was listening, leaned over to her, and putting his hand up to his mouth, whispered, "The taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need."
The Secretary excitedly returned to her staff and announced she had made up her mind, they would base the new program on the government's power to tax. (She never told them how she had finally come to this insight.)
https://www.ssa.gov/history/tea.htm
Since one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare," (preamble) once the government has collected the tax, it can spend it however it likes to to this. Subject to passing appropriate laws and appropriations.
Congress can decide that even though you paid no money in (like my wife) you can get partial or full benefits. Or, you may have paid the max for 50 years and congress can decide no money for you. Paying or not paying gives you no right to receive a nickle.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
"...access to work that gave them an income and dignity and meaning."
...There will always be a large group of people who have no interest in productive work, and no qualifications for it. There will always be a large group of people who prefer criminal activity and fraud to work.
There will also always be jobs that don't intrinsically provide "dignity and meaning," only income. And in the US, every college-bound kid is being taught that "dignity and meaning" are the sine qua non for any job, meaning that they're going to approach even jobs that can provide these things for some people with skepticism, and many will hold out for jobs with dumb HR "strategic goals" that aren't strategic and "sustainability plans" that they have no real intent to put into practice, and those kids are going to go through their lives feeling put-upon instead of proud of themselves for being self-supporting.
Excellent.
A couple of people have mentioned the ss will run out of funds in 20 years. Seems like it is always 20 years. The same way the artic ice cap has been Goin to disappear since the 80s.
First time I heard it was 1967 in navy basic training lecture on pay, allowance and benefits. SS woul be "out of money" in 20 years (1987) and we would never see it. They used this to pitch the benefit of 50% pension after 20 (actually 18.5) years.
I've heard it continually since then.
My wife and I both get ss.
Do you know how hard it is not to? VA will not treat me unless I'm signed up. Something to do with Medicare. My wife (and I) would have been kicked off her employer's health insurance (Triple S) had she not signed up.
I've paid a lot in over the past 60 years and continue to do so. My wife as a pr govt employee has never paid any. She get less than me but much less.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
No population of biological organiams grows forever. None. Nada. Zilch. Most bounce around some average. Those that explode one year usually crash shortly thereafter.
We're not talking about an instantaneous(ish) crash, but a multi-generational one, already underway in the developed world. When animal species undergo something like that, the path is unclear - some become extinct, some may recover, please consult your local zoologist. (I'm a mere geologist and am more interested in extinctions than continuations of species, because extinctions are important for establishing time.)
So we're doing an experiment in real time on our own species: will we be animals, or something else?
And then there's the more immediate concern of culture. We all think we'll be the Eloi, but what if we turn out to be the Morlocks? Or, if we aren't the Morlocks, do we want to create them?
Been a while since I've read it but I remember Mark Steyn's 2008 book "America Alone" as being excellent on this topic, population decline.
One of the things I remember from the book is a bit of discussion of the movie "my big fat Greek wedding"
He pointed out that it would be nonsensical at the time of the book. Some large fraction (he gave numbers) of Greek teenagers have no brothers and sisters, no aunts and uncles. I think Italy was similar.
I had 6 first cousins, a brother and a sister and occasionally met a 2nd cousin.
My wife's mother was one of17, father 1 of 12 or so. All had big families. It would not be an exaggeration to say she has 100 first cousins. And she knows all of them as well as spouses and children.
And she also knows a gazillion 2nd and 3rd cousins. I used to think it odd 50 years ago. Now I find it very comforting.
I can really identify with Stephenson's description of extended Filipino families in Cryptonomicon.
And Jimmy buffets "everybody's got a cousin in Miami"
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
Fred Drinkwater said...
Listen Tina, the thing you aren't grasping is that every single one of those activities contributes to the US GDP. Therefore, they are all Good Things. You simply must get your mind out of the rut!
I assume you are talking tongue in cheek. Right?
If not, or for others who believe this nonsense (and many do) I would point you to one of my favorite economists, Bastiat and his parable of the broken window "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Link to the full text in the entry.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
Fred Drinkwater said...
Listen Tina, the thing you aren't grasping is that every single one of those activities contributes to the US GDP. Therefore, they are all Good Things. You simply must get your mind out of the rut!
I assume you are talking tongue in cheek. Right?
If not, or for others who believe this nonsense (and many do) I would point you to one of my favorite economists, Bastiat and his parable of the broken window "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Link to the full text in the entry.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
Given the social pressures of life inside Japan these days, I'm not sure I'd take it as an example of how well things can work.
"True, growth in overall G.D.P. has been fairly anemic in [the] past few decades, but G.D.P. per capita has held up well."
That won't continue.
I've often wondered if there is an alternative to a growth economy, and if a growth economy is solely dependent on population growth. I do know the systems put in place to sustain a population that has quadrupled in the past 100 years is very fragile. Long growth periods create fragile systems to support them. And there's always a bug in the system. The trouble is there's no expansion room left on this ball of mud to escape to and the systems we have put in place to support a global population of soon to be 10 billion people are very fragile indeed. I don't see how it doesn't crash at some point. There hundreds if not thousands points of inflection that could set off a cascade failure. Murphy's law.
As long as there is an economy, there will be payrolls and as long as there payrolls there will be payroll taxes. Social Security will always be around in some fashion but when push comes to shove, it will be means tested which most likely means anyone who worked hard, saved and has assets will get means tested.
Jordan Peterson had a podcast recently with Marion Tupy and Gale Pooley, two nerdy economists who wrote "Super Abundance". Their research and the book contest the "Limits to Growth" hypothesis--they extend and discuss the infamous Julian Simon/Paul Ehrlich bet. Simon was pessimistic by their standards.
One thing that they discuss is that real wealth of individuals is equal to time--how many hours do you have to work to sustain a given level of goods. They trace the prices of 50 commodities over time--for example how long a person had to work in 1850 to buy a lb of sugar vs. today (one day vs. less than an hour).
They also argue that statistically every new person benefits society more than each person burdens society--that population growth benefits all societies while reduction in population hurts.
Their statistical arguments are hard to argue with. Peterson, as a psychologist, thinks that this needs to be conveyed to our young people, who are now convinced that unless they are uniquely talented or part of a select victim group that their existence is a drag on the world and that they are useless. He argues that doing anything productive is a net benefit to society--and you can start by cleaning your room, eh!
It seems as if the kind of people who were upset about the (as it turns out, erroneous) prospect of a decline in polar bears, are pretty sanguine about a decline in the number of their own species.
My instinct is to not be in favor of this kind of person having any position of authority.
Just ignore the crowded streets... the booming sprawl.
That is all a figment of your imagination.
Just like Political grift from Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. et al.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा