Reply With Quote
The whole article is worth reading. Interesting stuff.
For now. On its current course, the U.S. population of 310 million will continue to grow relative to that of the rest of the developed world, primarily because its birth rate, while barely at replacement level, is still higher than that of almost any other industrialized country.Source article for the Foreign Policy Journal starts here:Birth rates are falling dramatically across Latin America, especially in Mexico, suggesting a tidal shift in migration patterns. Consider what happened with Puerto Rico, where birth rates have also plunged: Immigration to the mainland United States has all but stopped despite an open border and the lure of a considerably higher standard of living on the continent. In the not-so-distant future, the United States may well find itself competing for immigrants rather than building walls to keep them out.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...n_global_aging
Within about 20 years or so, I doubt illegal immigration will be of any concern.
Which makes the curernt debate, to me, all the more meaningless. Fences my ass.
The whole article is worth reading. Interesting stuff.
We have enough people in this country.
The conditions that led to the logic and reason for encouraging immigration is long dead.
This country is no longer in need of a bigger population.
So no, we won't be competing for immigrants. We have enough people now. Some would say too much.
I agree.
I laughed at the pretense of the article. People will continue to come here until we make it impossible for them to, or until our economy is as bad as theirs.
Immigration was a minor side point of the article that RG used as a hook.
Like I said, I laughed at the pretense.
What did you think of the article?
The pretense of the article Mr. Never Reads The Article Boy, had more to do with a rapidly aging global population.
Unless you have some other explanation for the lack of immigration from Puerto Rico, you might want to read the underlying article.
I just used part of the article to make a point.
People will continue to come here, until their own country is shrinking as rapidly as that of Peurto Rico, or Mexicos is beginning to.
BTW, the last baby projected to be born in Japan will be born in 2959 at current rates, according to the article, which is really quite fascinating.
I'm sorry, I meant the pretense of the OP.
I kinda figured.
You will disagree with me, but we will continue to do next to nothing about illegal immigration, and due to population pressures mentioned in the article, it will fall anyways.
It will therefore cease to be a problem. The only continent that will be left actually having more babies will be Africa.
Kind of hard to smuggle yourself to the US from there, don't you think?
Meh. In 20 years, we will get to see who is right about a great deal of things. Hope to see you there. I promise to keep the "I told you so's to a minimum."
(as you will of course do for my dumb ass)
I agree. Time will tell for most the things we disagree on.Meh. In 20 years, we will get to see who is right about a great deal of things. Hope to see you there. I promise to keep the "I told you so's to a minimum."
What did you think of the article?
More young people = more workers supporting aging people in Social Security.
The thing is that population = human capital = more scientists = more inventors
I fully disagree. We are already facing shortages in a lot of job fields.
The problem is not that America lacks people.
The problem is that 50 years of left-wing culture has reduced much of the population to simians.
Fascinating article.
(Unsure sure whether the comparison to "simians" is more insulting to monkeys or to us)
The lop sided population is created by our ability to heal. Ends up costing us more and more as people live longer and longer if we make medical an en lement. It will bankrupt nations falling into that trap. Also shows the world is playing a Ponzi scheme with people like we do with money.
Medicine keeps people healthier and longer. This extends the ability to work, and preserves a LOT of education and experience, two measures of human capital.
People are an asset. You would not think twice about spending money to maintain a bridge, or a vehicle.
This is one of my main problems with a the overall charactor of many libertarian and conservative arguments.
You collectively would sacrifice logical solutions on the altar of moral self-righteousness.
I think we would gain far more long-term economic benefit by accepting the short term raising of taxes moderately and using that to fund things like education and health care for people who are not making enough money to buy health insurance.
I view this in the same manner as spending on physical infrastructure.
I would include in "education" the social and support to help struggling parents spend more time with their kids, like funding daycare so parents can work a bit less to have more time with their kids, and more teachers/tutoring.
Not enough lifeboats was also not a problem on the anic. Until it started sinking.
Random, you just don't get it.
Actually, you didn't get it WC. If you read the article, which I find very hard to believe.
It focuses on the possible effects of a contracting population rate. Not on overpopulation.
But hey, you had a 50%-50% shot. Nice guess.
Yes, I did get that. At the same time, you have less people supporting a longer living group that may exceed the younger generation.
My point had to do with not being able to guarantee free services to the aging population that may soon start living past 100 as an average. If they cannot afford life extending treatments, should the general population have to pay all their wealth in taxes to do so?
Fair enough.
Encouraging immigration is one way to alleviate that problem. Riposte?
No worries. We've got death panels for that now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
