4 ms·

This feels like the beginning of global population flat lining in the coming years. We eventually want the population of the world to level out and decline for

This feels like the beginning of global population flat lining in the coming years. We eventually want the population of the world to level out and decline for environmental reasons. Are there ways to combat the adverse economic effects of a declining population besides trying to raise the birth rate?

threeseed 11y ago
You do what most countries do. You allow skilled immigrants to enter the country and take the hit on the social costs. They also have the side effect of, in most case, raising the birth rate for you.
- actionwords 11y ago
  'skilled immigrants'. That's what they're calling mass population replacement now?
- dba7dba 11y ago
  I do't see any nation that has successfully had good luck with skilled immigrants.
  - praxulus 11y ago
    The United States?
    - EC1 11y ago
      You consider the US a success?
  - ern 11y ago
    The US? Australia? Canada? New Zealand? The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the grand scheme of things.
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      > The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is a blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the grand scheme of things. I think the native peoples of those countries would take issue with the idea that "skilled migrants"/"colonists" were a good thing for their nations. It seems bizarre to say we're optimizing for the economic success of the landmass and not the people currently living in it.
      - zanny 11y ago
        It is unlikely we will be slaughtered or deported from our nations if we allow immigration and see a gradual demographic shift towards the immigrants like in colonial times.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    singapore is the example in asia that is probably most germane to this discussion. see also: taiwan, hong kong.
- aikah 11y ago
  > You do what most countries do What country with a declining population did this and succeeded ?
  - adwf 11y ago
    Germany post-WW2, took in a ton of Turkish migrants to prop up the economy. Britain post-WW2, took in a ton of Indian/Pakistani migrants. For that matter, some people say that Germany currently is trying the exact same with Syrian refugees.
    - threeseed 11y ago
      History is going to look back very favourably on Merkel. The Syrian refugees are mostly educated, middle class and not only was it a good thing to do from a humanitarian perspective. It's a very shrewd move from an economic one as well.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    While we're not there yet, it's pretty much the plan for Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.ht...
Gibbon1 11y ago
I think that if you ignore classic post war economic orthodoxy[1] there are offsetting economic benefits to a declining population. Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. The number of children that need to be educated goes down. The ratio of the countries carrying capacity vs actual population improves pushing you farther away from the Malthusian limit. Maybe not so good if you're in the drywall business. [1] The kind that focuses on aggregate money flows and spending to the exclusion of everything actually important.
- a3n 11y ago
  > Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. Yeah, but every year you have as much infrastructure as you had last year, except some of it degrades or is abandoned and becomes dangerous.
  - JBReefer 11y ago
    So then you do what many cities around the world have done, and tear out highways to lower opex and create a more pleasant place to live.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > So then you do what many cities around the world have done, and tear out highways to lower opex and create a more pleasant place to live. Yes, you can do that: that's a capital cost of maintaining quality of life under declining population. I'm not sure how a choice between continued declining quality of life or incurring a significant capital cost is a "benefit", however.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I think that if you ignore classic post war economic orthodoxy there are offsetting economic benefits to a declining population. There might be some benefits, but I've yet to see an argument that they are such that the balance is negative for the specific case of Japan. > Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. Which would be fine, if X infrastructure with Y proportion degradation due to lack of maintenance was equivalent to X*(1-Y) of optimally-structured infrastructure. The problem is, its not.

threeseed 11y ago

You do what most countries do. You allow skilled immigrants to enter the country and take the hit on the social costs. They also have the side effect of, in most case, raising the birth rate for you.

actionwords 11y ago
'skilled immigrants'. That's what they're calling mass population replacement now?
dba7dba 11y ago
I do't see any nation that has successfully had good luck with skilled immigrants.
- praxulus 11y ago
  The United States?
  - EC1 11y ago
    You consider the US a success?
- ern 11y ago
  The US? Australia? Canada? New Zealand? The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the grand scheme of things.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    > The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is a blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the grand scheme of things. I think the native peoples of those countries would take issue with the idea that "skilled migrants"/"colonists" were a good thing for their nations. It seems bizarre to say we're optimizing for the economic success of the landmass and not the people currently living in it.
    - zanny 11y ago
      It is unlikely we will be slaughtered or deported from our nations if we allow immigration and see a gradual demographic shift towards the immigrants like in colonial times.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  singapore is the example in asia that is probably most germane to this discussion. see also: taiwan, hong kong.
aikah 11y ago
> You do what most countries do What country with a declining population did this and succeeded ?
- adwf 11y ago
  Germany post-WW2, took in a ton of Turkish migrants to prop up the economy. Britain post-WW2, took in a ton of Indian/Pakistani migrants. For that matter, some people say that Germany currently is trying the exact same with Syrian refugees.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    History is going to look back very favourably on Merkel. The Syrian refugees are mostly educated, middle class and not only was it a good thing to do from a humanitarian perspective. It's a very shrewd move from an economic one as well.
- slavik81 11y ago
  While we're not there yet, it's pretty much the plan for Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.ht...

Gibbon1 11y ago

I think that if you ignore classic post war economic orthodoxy[1] there are offsetting economic benefits to a declining population. Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. The number of children that need to be educated goes down. The ratio of the countries carrying capacity vs actual population improves pushing you farther away from the Malthusian limit. Maybe not so good if you're in the drywall business. [1] The kind that focuses on aggregate money flows and spending to the exclusion of everything actually important.

a3n 11y ago
> Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. Yeah, but every year you have as much infrastructure as you had last year, except some of it degrades or is abandoned and becomes dangerous.
- JBReefer 11y ago
  So then you do what many cities around the world have done, and tear out highways to lower opex and create a more pleasant place to live.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > So then you do what many cities around the world have done, and tear out highways to lower opex and create a more pleasant place to live. Yes, you can do that: that's a capital cost of maintaining quality of life under declining population. I'm not sure how a choice between continued declining quality of life or incurring a significant capital cost is a "benefit", however.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I think that if you ignore classic post war economic orthodoxy there are offsetting economic benefits to a declining population. There might be some benefits, but I've yet to see an argument that they are such that the balance is negative for the specific case of Japan. > Such as every year you don't need as much infrastructure. Which would be fine, if X infrastructure with Y proportion degradation due to lack of maintenance was equivalent to X*(1-Y) of optimally-structured infrastructure. The problem is, its not.