4 ms·

Between this, the spike in suicides across the US, and the opioid crisis, the US appears to be experiencing a kind of “die off” whose only analogue I can think

Between this, the spike in suicides across the US, and the opioid crisis, the US appears to be experiencing a kind of “die off” whose only analogue I can think of is post-Soviet Russia. I wonder if we’ll be able to correct course or continue to believe that things like rising GDP, unmoored from the material reality of most people, can paper over these trends.

ab_testing 7y ago
The US is not experiencing a die-off. The net population growth in the US is still positive. More births and deaths. Combined that with a net positive immigration, the US is not susceptible to falling population levels like those of in Japan and Russia
- claudeganon 7y ago
  > The net population growth in the US is still positive. By something like half a percent. Simultaneously birth rates are decreasing to near historic lows, immigration is being constricted, millennial life expectancy is on the decline, and suicides have spiked across all age groups. Yes, I’ll concede that we’re not at the level of Russia or Japan yet, but something has definitely gone off the rails and not trending in a great direction.
  - GhostVII 7y ago
    Why is it not a great direction? I think if we can keep human population under 10 billion by reducing the birth rate it is probably best for everyone. And immigration rates are fairly high relative to what they have been historically (higher than 2008-2015) [0]. [0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigra...
  - turk73 7y ago
    I really don't see the fucking problem. Useless people drink themselves to death, beats having to kill them off in a war. Individually, these are tragedies, I guess. Not my former brother-in-law who drank himself to death, his death was a liberation for my sister and her kids.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Why does population need to constantly increase? Or, posit that this is true: Then what?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elfexec 7y ago
> the US appears to be experiencing a kind of “die off” whose only analogue I can think of is post-Soviet Russia. Not even close. Russia's 1990s "die off" was so severe that the current russian population is lower than it was in 1990. 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still has less people. In the same period, the US population grew from 240 million to 330 million. In 2010, the US population was 308 million. So even in this "die off" decade, our population grew. To show how devastating the soviet collapse was for russia just compare that to the devastation of ww2. After ww2, russia's population recovered after 10 years. They still haven't recovered in 30 years after the soviet collapse. This is also true for the economy as well. The soviet collapse was far worse for russia than ww2 by any measure. It is by any objective measure, the worst thing to happen to any country in the 20th century. Were it not for russia's nukes, they'd be a source of pity. They've fallen so far and haven't gotten back up. And it's been 30 years. 1.5 generations.
- turk73 7y ago
  You have to give people something to live for. High taxes and starvation wages aren't it.
- watwut 7y ago
  > The soviet collapse was far worse for russia than ww2 by any measure. That is literally not true, by a lot. Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. There was whole year of males basically killed (not sure which one, but the ones that were 18 when it all started I think). There were massive atrocities against civilian population, whole areas burned down and all that uncontrolled violence going on along with ethnical cleansing. What happened is that post ww2, people had children. You lived in communism and people turned into familly instead of to career. Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. I know. Russia suffered greatly in ww2. That's my point. It's why I compared ww2 to the soviet collapse. That's how awful the soviet collapse was for russia. It was even worse than ww2. I never claimed the west suffered more than russia in ww2. No country suffered more than russia in ww2. > What happened is that post ww2, people had children. Not only that they had jobs and hope for the future. Life expectancy increased, everything got better. They became the 2nd largest economy in the world. Everything improved not just from ww2, but even prior to ww2. The exact opposite happened after the soviet collapse. They stopped having children, people died in droves, life expectancy dropped dramatically, their economy tanked from being #2 economy in the world to a third world hellhole being picked apart by foreign vultures, etc. Even today, 30 years later, russia still hasn't recovered. It took russia 10 years to recover from ww2. In 30 years, russia has yet to recover. In other words, russia is worse off today in population, economy, international clout, etc than they were 30 years ago. > Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not. We have less children because we are wealthy and selfish. Russia isn't wealthy. Also, given the growth the west has enjoyed in the last 30 years, we can afford to have less children ( though we probably should be having more ), but russia doesn't have that luxury. Anyways, people think since bombs weren't dropped during the soviet collapse that ww2 was the worst thing russia experienced in the 20th century, but an objective analysis clearly shows otherwise. Winning ww2 helped russia advance and improve. Losing the cold war truly damaged russia in ways that it doesn't seem capable of recovering from. Not only that Russia has a higher median age than the US. So not only is russia older, it's poorer than the US. That doesn't bode too well for future russian prospects.

ab_testing 7y ago

The US is not experiencing a die-off. The net population growth in the US is still positive. More births and deaths. Combined that with a net positive immigration, the US is not susceptible to falling population levels like those of in Japan and Russia

claudeganon 7y ago
> The net population growth in the US is still positive. By something like half a percent. Simultaneously birth rates are decreasing to near historic lows, immigration is being constricted, millennial life expectancy is on the decline, and suicides have spiked across all age groups. Yes, I’ll concede that we’re not at the level of Russia or Japan yet, but something has definitely gone off the rails and not trending in a great direction.
- GhostVII 7y ago
  Why is it not a great direction? I think if we can keep human population under 10 billion by reducing the birth rate it is probably best for everyone. And immigration rates are fairly high relative to what they have been historically (higher than 2008-2015) [0]. [0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigra...
- turk73 7y ago
  I really don't see the fucking problem. Useless people drink themselves to death, beats having to kill them off in a war. Individually, these are tragedies, I guess. Not my former brother-in-law who drank himself to death, his death was a liberation for my sister and her kids.
freeone3000 7y ago
Why does population need to constantly increase? Or, posit that this is true: Then what?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

elfexec 7y ago

> the US appears to be experiencing a kind of “die off” whose only analogue I can think of is post-Soviet Russia. Not even close. Russia's 1990s "die off" was so severe that the current russian population is lower than it was in 1990. 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still has less people. In the same period, the US population grew from 240 million to 330 million. In 2010, the US population was 308 million. So even in this "die off" decade, our population grew. To show how devastating the soviet collapse was for russia just compare that to the devastation of ww2. After ww2, russia's population recovered after 10 years. They still haven't recovered in 30 years after the soviet collapse. This is also true for the economy as well. The soviet collapse was far worse for russia than ww2 by any measure. It is by any objective measure, the worst thing to happen to any country in the 20th century. Were it not for russia's nukes, they'd be a source of pity. They've fallen so far and haven't gotten back up. And it's been 30 years. 1.5 generations.

turk73 7y ago
You have to give people something to live for. High taxes and starvation wages aren't it.
watwut 7y ago
> The soviet collapse was far worse for russia than ww2 by any measure. That is literally not true, by a lot. Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. There was whole year of males basically killed (not sure which one, but the ones that were 18 when it all started I think). There were massive atrocities against civilian population, whole areas burned down and all that uncontrolled violence going on along with ethnical cleansing. What happened is that post ww2, people had children. You lived in communism and people turned into familly instead of to career. Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. I know. Russia suffered greatly in ww2. That's my point. It's why I compared ww2 to the soviet collapse. That's how awful the soviet collapse was for russia. It was even worse than ww2. I never claimed the west suffered more than russia in ww2. No country suffered more than russia in ww2. > What happened is that post ww2, people had children. Not only that they had jobs and hope for the future. Life expectancy increased, everything got better. They became the 2nd largest economy in the world. Everything improved not just from ww2, but even prior to ww2. The exact opposite happened after the soviet collapse. They stopped having children, people died in droves, life expectancy dropped dramatically, their economy tanked from being #2 economy in the world to a third world hellhole being picked apart by foreign vultures, etc. Even today, 30 years later, russia still hasn't recovered. It took russia 10 years to recover from ww2. In 30 years, russia has yet to recover. In other words, russia is worse off today in population, economy, international clout, etc than they were 30 years ago. > Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not. We have less children because we are wealthy and selfish. Russia isn't wealthy. Also, given the growth the west has enjoyed in the last 30 years, we can afford to have less children ( though we probably should be having more ), but russia doesn't have that luxury. Anyways, people think since bombs weren't dropped during the soviet collapse that ww2 was the worst thing russia experienced in the 20th century, but an objective analysis clearly shows otherwise. Winning ww2 helped russia advance and improve. Losing the cold war truly damaged russia in ways that it doesn't seem capable of recovering from. Not only that Russia has a higher median age than the US. So not only is russia older, it's poorer than the US. That doesn't bode too well for future russian prospects.