Global Population Trends
A couple of years ago NYT columnist Matt Ygelias published a book titled One Billion Americans, arguing that the US should strive for that goal, in part to counter China. Lots of people objected saying that the US already had too many people, an argument I find confusing. There's lots of space in most states to build new cities. Previously, in the western states the issue was, and still is, access to water. Now the costs of desalination are as low as $0.01 per gallon.
Even though global population will continue rise for several decades birth rates are cratering below replacement level almost everywhere except Africa, (for now). More countries are having to confront the issue of too few workers paying taxes to support the increased number of pensioners.
Do you think deliberate attempts to increase populations, particularly in developed countries, whether through natural methods or immigration is a worthwhile goal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans)
Being a Norwegian, I haven't thought much about such policy in the US, but it is an interesting and complex topic.
In Norway, I'd say no. Norwegians tax the environment and, from an economic point of view, also Norwegian society. On average, raising a new Norwegian from birth and putting him/her through school and providing that person with services will mean that by the time they die, they will have cost society the equivalent of some hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they paid back through taxes. Most people don't pay back their debt to society and society's resources get stretched thin. The most feasible way to gain "new" people who will be net contributors is by taking them from elsewhere and that they come to us as more fully formed and ready to join the work force. In Norway, I think it's a better strategy to iron out problems with the immigration system and then carefully bolster our numbers that way.
About people in the US, I don't know what the maths is like. I'm sure it's much harder to figure out with that population size. Maybe it is cheaper to raise new US citizens than it is Norwegians. Maybe they're even profitable.
However, it does raise the question of what society is for. If you want a work force to compete with China, that doesn't sound like a goal that will align with the interests of US individuals unless they find themselves a little higher in that hierarchy. Most won't.
I think Society should be for our mutual benefit. Society should strive to increase the quality of life for people in it in the long run. That means happier people that feel like they matter with healthy relationships and good physical health. They don't have to be rich, but they shouldn't find it too hard to get a wage that means their basic necessities are met and then some. It means we can't pollute or destroy our planet too much, lest it becomes too inhospitable. In other words, I think society should be for the long term good of its people.
Does competing with China align with my overall goals? In the short term, I think not, but I don't know what it could mean for the more distant future.
Just adding some random thoughts to this.
For many decades now, we have enjoyed a time of expansion as well and have built a lot of infrastructure while upkeep and maintenance costs have been low. Most roads, water and wastewater infrastructure, tunnels and bridges etc. were built after the second world war. It's been relatively new and hasn't demanded much in terms of upkeep. This is changing now as we're heading into a future where most of our infrastructure is old and so the cost of the services maintaining them will increase per capita. This coincides with stronger regulation which puts further demand on what our infrastructure should achieve. Running society seems to get more costly unless AI or perhaps advances in energy or something can help turn things around.
In the US you also have the national debt to think about which factors into this and puts a strain on US economy.
Just generally speaking, I think it would be nice if society was sustainable, both economically and environmentally.
^^^
I've been to Oslo once, briefly in the 1980s, so don't know much, but I just looked up some Norwegian stats. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is the benchmark for population replacement. Much of Europe is well below that. In 2022 Norway was at 1.4, which is also the level below which it is very difficult to recover and a population will shrink rapidly. The US and even Ireland are both at 1.7. I understand your point of favoring immigration, and I too think that is the only viable way, but many are opposed.
It won't be necessary or useful to compete with China in every sphere, but the US wants to be the magnet for the best brains in the world and to maintain that for the next 50-100 years will require investments in all levels of education, and other areas that a diminishing population will find difficult to shoulder. In my view the only answer is higher immigration. The debate about illegals in the US gets so muddied up, you wonder if people are looking beyond their noses.
The US, particularly east of the Mississippi, also has severe infrastructure problems.
Angela Merkel was fond of saying that Europe has 7.5% of the global population, 25% of global GDP, and 50% of social spending.
The implication being that the status quo is not sustainable. I think a lot of people in the US and EU are unwilling to face these issues.
In 2024 Korea, which along with Japan, is considered the most vulnerable to population decline, had a 3% increase in births, but the population continued to decline because deaths outnumbered births. In order to just stand still and maintain a static population Korea needed a 53% increase in births. Neither the Koreans nor Japanese are big on immigration.
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10382593 (https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10382593)
The UN believes that the world passed "Peak Child" in 2017...
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passed-peak-child (https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passed-peak-child)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 14, 2025, 07:33 PMThe UN believes that the world passed "Peak Child" in 2017...
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passed-peak-child (https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passed-peak-child)
It cites Hans Rosling for coining the term. I attended a lecture by the late professor Rosling when he visited my old university some roughly 15 years ago. He was very inspiring in his positive outlook on the world and trends. The negative relationship between fertility and quality of life was one of the things he talked about. Back then I think people were still mostly worried about overpopulation..
His site Gapminder lives on and has (or at least used to have) quite a bit of interesting data on it: https://www.gapminder.org/
All this recent talk of Hawk reminds me that this thread is missing the nervous and indignant anger of a Malthusian. :laughing:
^^^ Love it. Feel free to take up the cudgel. :laughing:
From a Semafor newsletter. No individual link.
QuoteDeaths in the US will outnumber births by 2033, seven years earlier than previously thought. A government report said birth rates had slowed faster than expected, and with lower immigration the population would start to shrink within eight years. Aging populations are an increasingly global concern: One study forecast that annual dementia diagnoses in the US could double to 1 million by 2060, while a McKinsey report said that two-thirds of the world's population lives in countries with fertility rates below replacement levels. The pressure on working-age groups to support retirees, especially in the rich world and China, will become unsustainable. "The current calculus of economies cannot support existing income and retirement norms," the McKinsey report said. "Something must give."
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-depopulation-confronting-the-consequences-of-a-new-demographic-reality?utm_source=semafor (https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-depopulation-confronting-the-consequences-of-a-new-demographic-reality?utm_source=semafor)
Chemicals in the environment are believed to be having a significant negative effect on both male and female fertility.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 02, 2025, 10:26 PM^^^
I've been to Oslo once, briefly in the 1980s, so don't know much, but I just looked up some Norwegian stats. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is the benchmark for population replacement. Much of Europe is well below that. In 2022 Norway was at 1.4, which is also the level below which it is very difficult to recover and a population will shrink rapidly. The US and even Ireland are both at 1.7. I understand your point of favoring immigration, and I too think that is the only viable way, but many are opposed...
Indeed, that 2.1 birthrate figure has remained unapposed for as long as I can remember so it's probably up there with the law of gravity.
I fully agree that we are heading towards a problematic era where there will simply not be enough younger taxpayers contributing towards the pensions of an ageing population. This problem is of course exacerbated in a system where governments are not quite sure what to do in terms of pension reform without causing upset and panic every time they try to address the subject. If pressure regarding pension reform is happening in one country, then it's happenning in another. After all, we live in a global economy where freedom of movement is important. Many people will be drawing down their pensions from different countries/jurisdictions they may have worked in.
But after all this is said and done, I do think a two-tier world is becoming blindly obvious, i.e.:
1. the poorest in society who rely, and will continue to rely their national governments to attend to their needs, thinking that their govts. are the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to their pensions, health, and public services, and
2. the very richest in society who operate on a different level, because they have control of national services through privatisation, including control of the politicitans (who incidentally go on to earn a lot more in the asset sector after their terms in office.)
Now, don't get me wrong. I have never been against investing in ETFs, portfolios and funds. I look at the French "Bourserama" everyday After all, I worked in London for many years, and rubbed shoulders with seemingly successful business people from all over the world who were trying to create a "better" society. But I do wonder what better society they were trying to create? One which benefitted everyone, or one which made a quick margin for them and the next guy?
And then, there's probably a 3rd level of absolute lizardry going on, where global behemoths (Blackrock anyone?) may be trying to buy everything that moves (usually at a very low price after a 'crash' or 'pandemic') and then rent it back to us at a hefty profito. But I'm not qualified to talk about that.
Inspirations for this post:- SGR's, Guybrush's and OH's general umphness, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
- Wondering what Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris or Gary Stevenson would say on this matter.
Wealthy pensioners should take a hit.
Just means-test the state pension. It's not right that these people, mostly homeowners with generous work pensions anyway, should then be entitled to state support when there are more needy people in society. Take for example Sir Alex Ferguson. He's entitled to state pension and no doubt claims it. Why should he get it? I love him but why?
You will hear the bleats of "it's my money!" and cries of "I've paid in all my life", well no you haven't, you paid for the pensions during your working life and now the current workforce pays for yours. There is no pot. It's not even a pension. It's a benefit. And it's high time old people realised this. You've had cheap housing and benefited from astronomical property price rises. You've bought your council homes when we had plenty of council housing. You've had good, secure work with wage increases every year. You've had free higher education and free TV licenses, free bus passes and so on. Time for you to take a fucking hit for once. Tory voting cunts.
Fucking sick of it.
Wealthy pensioners moaning about Starmer and Labour stopping the WFA for pensioners with an income over a certain amount. You don't fucking need the £300 anyway you greedy fuck.
Winds me up.
And yes I am slightly mad bro.
Quote from: Saulaac on Jan 19, 2025, 11:12 PMIndeed, that 2.1 birthrate figure has remained unapposed for as long as I can remember so it's probably up there with the law of gravity.
I fully agree that we are heading towards a problematic era where there will simply not be enough younger taxpayers contributing towards the pensions of an ageing population. This problem is of course exacerbated in a system where governments are not quite sure what to do in terms of pension reform without causing upset and panic every time they try to address the subject. If pressure regarding pension reform is happening in one country, then it's happenning in another. After all, we live in a global economy where freedom of movement is important. Many people will be drawing down their pensions from different countries/jurisdictions they may have worked in.
But after all this is said and done, I do think a two-tier world is becoming blindly obvious, i.e.:
1. the poorest in society who rely, and will continue to rely their national governments to attend to their needs, thinking that their govts. are the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to their pensions, health, and public services, and
2. the very richest in society who operate on a different level, because they have control of national services through privatisation, including control of the politicitans (who incidentally go on to earn a lot more in the asset sector after their terms in office.)
Now, don't get me wrong. I have never been against investing in ETFs, portfolios and funds. I look at the French "Bourserama" everyday After all, I worked in London for many years, and rubbed shoulders with seemingly successful business people from all over the world who were trying to create a "better" society. But I do wonder what better society they were trying to create? One which benefitted everyone, or one which made a quick margin for them and the next guy?
And then, there's probably a 3rd level of absolute lizardry going on, where global behemoths (Blackrock anyone?) may be trying to buy everything that moves (usually at a very low price after a 'crash' or 'pandemic') and then rent it back to us at a hefty profito. But I'm not qualified to talk about that.
Inspirations for this post:
- SGR's, Guybrush's and OH's general umphness, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
- Wondering what Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris or Gary Stevenson would say on this matter.
I broadly agree, except to say that most people lie in between groups 1 and 2 that you identified above. That doesn't make your analysis wrong, just incomplete.
It used be said that the problem was that couples were having too few children, but that has now progressed to there are now simply too few couples.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 20, 2025, 12:55 AMWealthy pensioners should take a hit.
Just means-test the state pension. It's not right that these people, mostly homeowners with generous work pensions anyway, should then be entitled to state support when there are more needy people in society. Take for example Sir Alex Ferguson. He's entitled to state pension and no doubt claims it. Why should he get it? I love him but why?
You will hear the bleats of "it's my money!" and cries of "I've paid in all my life", well no you haven't, you paid for the pensions during your working life and now the current workforce pays for yours. There is no pot. It's not even a pension. It's a benefit. And it's high time old people realised this. You've had cheap housing and benefited from astronomical property price rises. You've bought your council homes when we had plenty of council housing. You've had good, secure work with wage increases every year. You've had free higher education and free TV licenses, free bus passes and so on. Time for you to take a fucking hit for once. Tory voting cunts.
Fucking sick of it.
Wealthy pensioners moaning about Starmer and Labour stopping the WFA for pensioners with an income over a certain amount. You don't fucking need the £300 anyway you greedy fuck.
Winds me up.
And yes I am slightly mad bro.
I hear ya, but don't think means testing pensions alone will come anywhere near solving the problem. Remember, pensioners are mostly less than 20% of the population. Wealthy ones an even smaller number. Increasing both taxes and the pension age, lowering pensions, increasing fertility incentives, encouraging immigration, and more will all have to be part of the solution.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 20, 2025, 08:12 PMI hear ya, but don't think means testing pensions alone will come anywhere near solving the problem. Remember, pensioners are mostly less than 20% of the population. Wealthy ones an even smaller number. Increasing both taxes and the pension age, lowering pensions, increasing fertility incentives, encouraging immigration, and more will all have to be part of the solution.
Would be a start. I just don't get it, they're nearly always the group that moans the most as well, they want everyone else to suffer. Overwhelmingly voted for Tories and Brexit which is a huge part of why we're in the mess we're in right now.
It's unreal.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 20, 2025, 12:55 AMWealthy pensioners should take a hit.
Just means-test the state pension. It's not right that these people, mostly homeowners with generous work pensions anyway, should then be entitled to state support when there are more needy people in society. Take for example Sir Alex Ferguson. He's entitled to state pension and no doubt claims it. Why should he get it? I love him but why?
You will hear the bleats of "it's my money!" and cries of "I've paid in all my life", well no you haven't, you paid for the pensions during your working life and now the current workforce pays for yours. There is no pot. It's not even a pension. It's a benefit. And it's high time old people realised this. You've had cheap housing and benefited from astronomical property price rises. You've bought your council homes when we had plenty of council housing. You've had good, secure work with wage increases every year. You've had free higher education and free TV licenses, free bus passes and so on. Time for you to take a fucking hit for once. Tory voting cunts.
Fucking sick of it.
Wealthy pensioners moaning about Starmer and Labour stopping the WFA for pensioners with an income over a certain amount. You don't fucking need the £300 anyway you greedy fuck.
Winds me up.
And yes I am slightly mad bro.
Well you're justified in being pissed off, imo. Less well-off pensioners were also hit with the winter fuel allowance cuts, so a double whammy at a time when they had just voted in a Labour government who they thought would protect them better. Bastards. Tbh I don't think any of the two main parties in any country are much different these days.
But I don't have a solution. Maybe to support a "radical centre" candidate who can inspire both entrepreneurship and a strong welfare state?
In France, pensions
are means tested, so you're eligible for a basic state pension if you didn't pay into a private/corporate pension fund. If you did pay into a private fund, and espectially if you're well off, then you don't get the state pension. That to to me is common sense.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 20, 2025, 08:05 PMI broadly agree, except to say that most people lie in between groups 1 and 2 that you identified above. That doesn't make your analysis wrong, just incomplete.
It used be said that the problem was that couples were having too few children, but that has now progressed to there are now simply too few couples.
Yep, I kind of wanted to highlight both ends of the spectrum, but sure there is a very large middle bit. However, it appears that wealth distribution is becoming more unequal which would suggest a move towards the extremes rather than a convergence towards the middle. I might and watch "Margin Call" again tonight with Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons... There are some good scenes in there.
Quote from: Saulaac on Jan 21, 2025, 05:24 PMWell you're justified in being pissed off, imo. Less well-off pensioners were also hit with the winter fuel allowance cuts, so a double whammy at a time when they had just voted in a Labour government who they thought would protect them better. Bastards. Tbh I don't think any of the two main parties in any country are much different these days.
But I don't have a solution. Maybe to support a "radical centre" candidate who can inspire both entrepreneurship and a strong welfare state?
In France, pensions are means tested, so you're eligible for a basic state pension if you didn't pay into a private/corporate pension fund. If you did pay into a private fund, and espectially if you're well off, then you don't get the state pension. That to to me is common sense.
I can accept that maybe the cut off point was too low, needs looking at to be sure people aren't genuinely struggling. But there are also plenty of wealthy pensioners pleading poverty purely to attack Labour when it just isn't true. They voted Tory in their droves when they were making cuts to PIP and putting a cap on child benefit (think it was two kids), so clearly large numbers of them were fine when other people faced cuts. They just didn't think it would happen to them and now it has they don't like it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7gzx2dz23o
Another one pleading poverty.
She is 66, so has only just become eligible for the state pension and wouldn't have received the WFA anyway.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 16, 2025, 02:28 AM^^^ Love it. Feel free to take up the cudgel. :laughing:
Trust me, if I was a Malthusian, I would - but even then, no one could do it like Hawk could do it. He stuck to his guns on the issue, I'll give him that. :laughing:
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 23, 2025, 05:06 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7gzx2dz23o
Another one pleading poverty.
She is 66, so has only just become eligible for the state pension and wouldn't have received the WFA anyway.
The lady said she has £4 left in the bank and feels like a failure. Kin hell :( . But still smiling in the photo like a beam of light.
If she owns the house (wasn't mentioned in the article) then at least she has a way out. If renting then that's crappy.
What's WFA. Work Force Adjustment?
Quote from: Saulaac on Jan 23, 2025, 11:25 PMThe lady said she has £4 left in the bank and feels like a failure. Kin hell :( . But still smiling in the photo like a beam of light.
If she owns the house (wasn't mentioned in the article) then at least she has a way out. If renting then that's crappy.
What's WFA. Work Force Adjustment?
Winter Fuel Allowance. The government paid it to all pensioners up to an amount of £300 to help with energy bills.
It's not true mate, she never got the WFA as she was never eligible for it. She hasn't 'lost' it any more than I have.
Huh? The article is deliberately misleading then, or she was fibbing to the reporter.
(https://i.ibb.co/5v3ZZbp/frown-confused.gif)
Quote from: Saulaac on Jan 23, 2025, 11:58 PMHuh? The article is deliberately misleading then, or she was fibbing to the reporter.
Exactly. Work it out if you don't believe me.
State pension age is 66 and has been since 2020. She's 66 now, so she couldn't have got it before this year as she was not eligible for the state pension. It was cut months ago (in other words before winter), so she hasn't lost anything because she has never received it.
OK, but I don't get why the beeb would interview her then.
Well spotted btw.
Korea has just created a Ministry of Population Decline...
QuoteHiroshi Yoshida, a professor at the Tohoku University Research Center for Aging Economics and Society, has developed a demographic clock that tracks Japan's population decline in real time. His calculations paint a grim picture: if birth rates continue to plummet at their current pace, Japan could have just one child under 14 left by January 5, 2720. This projection highlights the severity of Japan's demographic crisis and the urgent need for action.
Yoshida's research also touches on cultural and legislative quirks that exacerbate the issue. For instance, Japan's marriage name law could lead to a surprising consequence: by 2531, nearly all Japanese citizens could share the same surname, Sato. This prediction underscores the compounding pressures of demographic decline and cultural norms, further emphasizing the need for comprehensive reforms.
https://indiandefencereview.com/by-this-date-one-major-country-will-have-only-one-child-left-warns-analyst/ (https://indiandefencereview.com/by-this-date-one-major-country-will-have-only-one-child-left-warns-analyst/)
India has 28 states + 8 territories. Only 4 of them, (albeit the most populous) have a fertility rate above replacement.
https://x.com/indiainpixels/status/1464197969016614915?lang=en-GB&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email (https://x.com/indiainpixels/status/1464197969016614915?lang=en-GB&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)
Elsewhere, Finland is in trouble. It's incentives don't seem to be working...
https://www.passblue.com/2025/01/27/finland-offers-more-perks-to-stop-its-declining-birth-rate-women-shrug-it-off/ (https://www.passblue.com/2025/01/27/finland-offers-more-perks-to-stop-its-declining-birth-rate-women-shrug-it-off/)
There are now over 40 countries, many European, classified as super-aged, meaning at least 20% of the population is over 65.
Japan has 30%. Canada just crossed 20%. US can't be far behind.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-worlds-super-aged-societies/#google_vignette (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-worlds-super-aged-societies/#google_vignette)
Currently, 128 of 233 (55%) of countries and territories measured have a fertility rate below replacement level.
You don't expect Latam to figure highly because of it's catholic culture, but on current trends by 2100 it will be the oldest region in the world.
QuoteLatin America is aging at an extraordinary pace, raising fears that the region is unprepared for the needs of its growing elderly population. Plummeting birth rates and rising life expectancy mean that by 2100 more than 31% of Latin America's population is expected to be 65 or older, a greater proportion than any other region in the world. Meanwhile, many workers in the region's large informal employment sector have no pension savings and slowing economic growth has left countries unprepared for the demographic shift. "There's a saying: 'Latin America gets older before it gets richer,'" an expert at the Inter-American Development Bank told Americas Quarterly.
Typically, a country's population will halve in a generation (usually considered 30 years to allow for those outside childbearing age), when the TFR drops to 1.0. Lot's of western countries are currently well below the TFR replacement level of 2.1. Many are at or below 1.5.
This will have implications, (none of which are good), for tax rates, pensions, retirement age, health care, social services etc.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison/ (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison/)
The Guardian just ran an article about predicted population changes in European countries in scenarios with and without migration.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/feb/18/europes-population-crisis-see-how-your-country-compares-visualised
I was unaware that Germany had surpassed Japan as the world's 3rd largest economy. Last week it was announced that California has now also passed Japan to become the 4th biggest in the world
This is a direct result of the declining Japanese population and workforce. Too few workers supporting too many seniors reduces productivity.
Same fate is in store for many other countries that are below the 2.1 replacement rate.
At current rates California will overtake Germany in about 6-8 years. Should be noted that both Germany and California will be overtaken by India before then.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/california-japan-economy-tariffs-intl-hnk/index.htm (https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/california-japan-economy-tariffs-intl-hnk/index.htm)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Apr 29, 2025, 02:13 AMI was unaware that Germany had surpassed Japan as the world's 3rd largest economy. Last week it was announced that California has now also passed Japan to become the 4th biggest in the world
This is a direct result of the declining Japanese population and workforce. Too few workers supporting too many seniors reduces productivity.
Same fate is in store for many other countries that are below the 2.1 replacement rate.
At current rates California will overtake Germany in about 6-8 years. Should be noted that both Germany and California will be overtaken by India before then.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/california-japan-economy-tariffs-intl-hnk/index.htm (https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/california-japan-economy-tariffs-intl-hnk/index.htm)
On a micro level, I see that planning for this future has reached our municipality's administration who have, among other things, began to think about repurposing buildings that house services for children / youngsters (like kindergartens) to instead support the elderly.
Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 29, 2025, 11:47 AMOn a micro level, I see that planning for this future has reached our municipality's administration who have, among other things, began to think about repurposing buildings that house services for children / youngsters (like kindergartens) to instead support the elderly.
They are probably well ahead of the curve compared to most others. OTOH, Norway at 1.42 is below the 1.5 level from which it is difficult to recover. France and Ireland are highest at 1.6, while Spain and Italy at 1.2 are the lowest in EU.