5 ms·

Westerners so enthusiastic about “China’s demographic problem” would be well advised to worry about their own, local sub-replacement birth rates, in particular

Westerners so enthusiastic about “China’s demographic problem” would be well advised to worry about their own, local sub-replacement birth rates, in particular for natives (you know, the ones who built the countries everybody else seems so hell-bent immigrating to), as well as for the educated, the middle classes. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19095925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19095925

sudosteph 5y ago
I'm guessing you don't mean "natives" in the modern sense. But I am still one of those people who's ancestors have been in this country since the 17th century, and I don't get what worries you. I was always taught that being American is not about being a particular race or ethnicity. Heck, my family couldn't even tell you our ethnicity other than "white". And I may be educated middle class, but my grandparents who grew up in the Appalachian mountains sure weren't. So long as the children of immigrants are adapting fine to the rest of American culture, who cares if our population growth depends on them?
skybrian 5y ago
Historically much of the US was built by immigrants, and it’s still the case that recent immigrants do a lot of work. They could do more if allowed. So, if you think that the demographic problem is not enough workers it could fairly easily be solved.
pcbro141 5y ago
I assume by 'native' you mean 'white'? Looking at the students/faculty of elite schools/research labs and staff of top companies, I see plenty of highly intelligent and educated non-white immigrants producing great work (sometimes they even make up the majority of these elite groups). And many (most?) Western countries do provide various incentives to have kids, as well as Asian countries, but the incentives don't ever seem to work to get above that 2.1 replacement level, so Western governments are 'worried'/concerned about birth rates, but boosting them significantly not an easy thing to do. Especially when part of the reason might be that people simply don't want more than 1 or 2 kids these days regardless of finances.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Re: replacement ration > 2.1 Its not just about the number of children per women/couple: the missing element is to have children really young. Like 16 - 24 Make childcare, schooling, etc tax deductible for starters.
  - pcbro141 5y ago
    IMO even with all those incentives I just don't see the typical age at first child getting to 16-24 in any Western country even with strong incentives. Not just because of costs, but the harder to modify cultural reasons like people valuing independence, "casual dating"/FWB more common instead of dating with intent to marry, less social pressure/shaming from parents ("why don't you have a husband/wife/kids yet?!"), freedom to "find yourself/travel" or "get sexually experienced/have a ho phase before settling" for years after college, etc. Most people don't want to go from college to marriage and kids right away these days, and a few years of this type of casual dating/exploration after college eats up a lot of prime reproductive years like you said. But these cultural factors are very hard to change especially with the absence of religion/strong communities these days.
- rainworld 5y ago
  white At this point it affects most countries outside of Africa. immigration I believe in diversity. Immigration will forever change the countries it affects, typically making them more like the source countries. boosting hard One might be able to push it just above 2.1, but fundamentally the causes are significant, unprecedented technological and social changes since the industrial revolution. Nowhere is it guaranteed that these changes produce a stable, lasting order.
enraged_camel 5y ago
>> in particular for natives (you know, the ones who built the countries everybody else seems so hell-bent immigrating to) It was difficult to read this and not laugh because it conveniently leaves out First Nations, as well as the fact that the USA in particular used immense amounts of slave labor while the "natives" you refer to (the whites) reaped the rewards in relative comfort.
- rainworld 5y ago
  I’m not american.
  - enraged_camel 5y ago
    I didn't say only America used slave labor.
    - rainworld 5y ago
      What you are implying is that the wealth of western nations in the present is in a significant way the product of slavery (by whites, of blacks; ignoring the universality in time and space of slavery) which is not the case. In the counterfactual, western nations without slavery, colonialism today would look roughly the same—except, of course, whiter.

sudosteph 5y ago

I'm guessing you don't mean "natives" in the modern sense. But I am still one of those people who's ancestors have been in this country since the 17th century, and I don't get what worries you. I was always taught that being American is not about being a particular race or ethnicity. Heck, my family couldn't even tell you our ethnicity other than "white". And I may be educated middle class, but my grandparents who grew up in the Appalachian mountains sure weren't. So long as the children of immigrants are adapting fine to the rest of American culture, who cares if our population growth depends on them?

skybrian 5y ago

Historically much of the US was built by immigrants, and it’s still the case that recent immigrants do a lot of work. They could do more if allowed. So, if you think that the demographic problem is not enough workers it could fairly easily be solved.

pcbro141 5y ago

I assume by 'native' you mean 'white'? Looking at the students/faculty of elite schools/research labs and staff of top companies, I see plenty of highly intelligent and educated non-white immigrants producing great work (sometimes they even make up the majority of these elite groups). And many (most?) Western countries do provide various incentives to have kids, as well as Asian countries, but the incentives don't ever seem to work to get above that 2.1 replacement level, so Western governments are 'worried'/concerned about birth rates, but boosting them significantly not an easy thing to do. Especially when part of the reason might be that people simply don't want more than 1 or 2 kids these days regardless of finances.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Re: replacement ration > 2.1 Its not just about the number of children per women/couple: the missing element is to have children really young. Like 16 - 24 Make childcare, schooling, etc tax deductible for starters.
- pcbro141 5y ago
  IMO even with all those incentives I just don't see the typical age at first child getting to 16-24 in any Western country even with strong incentives. Not just because of costs, but the harder to modify cultural reasons like people valuing independence, "casual dating"/FWB more common instead of dating with intent to marry, less social pressure/shaming from parents ("why don't you have a husband/wife/kids yet?!"), freedom to "find yourself/travel" or "get sexually experienced/have a ho phase before settling" for years after college, etc. Most people don't want to go from college to marriage and kids right away these days, and a few years of this type of casual dating/exploration after college eats up a lot of prime reproductive years like you said. But these cultural factors are very hard to change especially with the absence of religion/strong communities these days.
rainworld 5y ago
white At this point it affects most countries outside of Africa. immigration I believe in diversity. Immigration will forever change the countries it affects, typically making them more like the source countries. boosting hard One might be able to push it just above 2.1, but fundamentally the causes are significant, unprecedented technological and social changes since the industrial revolution. Nowhere is it guaranteed that these changes produce a stable, lasting order.

enraged_camel 5y ago

>> in particular for natives (you know, the ones who built the countries everybody else seems so hell-bent immigrating to) It was difficult to read this and not laugh because it conveniently leaves out First Nations, as well as the fact that the USA in particular used immense amounts of slave labor while the "natives" you refer to (the whites) reaped the rewards in relative comfort.

rainworld 5y ago
I’m not american.
- enraged_camel 5y ago
  I didn't say only America used slave labor.
  - rainworld 5y ago
    What you are implying is that the wealth of western nations in the present is in a significant way the product of slavery (by whites, of blacks; ignoring the universality in time and space of slavery) which is not the case. In the counterfactual, western nations without slavery, colonialism today would look roughly the same—except, of course, whiter.