Global Population Trends

[Buck_Mulligan]

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

[Guybrush]

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.

[Guybrush]

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.

[Buck_Mulligan]

^^^

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.

[Buck_Mulligan]

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

[Buck_Mulligan]

The UN believes that the world passed "Peak Child" in 2017...

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passed-peak-child

[Guybrush]

The UN believes that the world passed "Peak Child" in 2017...

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/

[SGR]

All this recent talk of Hawk reminds me that this thread is missing the nervous and indignant anger of a Malthusian. 

[Buck_Mulligan]

^^^ Love it. Feel free to take up the cudgel.

From a Semafor newsletter. No individual link.

Deaths 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

[Buck_Mulligan]

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/

[Saulaac]

^^^

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.

[jimmy jazz]

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.

[Buck_Mulligan]

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.

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.

[Buck_Mulligan]

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.

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.

[jimmy jazz]

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.

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.