5 ms·

Immigration is not one-stop solution to fix GDP because integration is huge cost that is rarely taken into account. And of course it doesn't at all address the

• chaostheory 4y ago
  Immigration is probably the only thing right now that mitigates the problem of consecutive declining birthrates. AI and robotics aren’t there yet. Historically, while immigration does have some downsides especially if your system has a lot of entitlements, the pros outweigh the cons. Imo it’s a big reason why the US eventually surpassed Europe, and a large reason for slowing down our decline.
  • jdasdf 4y ago
    >Immigration is probably the only thing right now that mitigates the problem of consecutive declining birthrates. No it isn't. It's fairly simple to increase declining birthrates in the west, there just isn't the political will do do what would be necessary to accomplish that (ie: Prohibit female education, abortion, birth control, kill the welfare state, etc...)
    • chaostheory 4y ago
      That’s my point. Immigration is the best solution.
      • tored 4y ago
        Hungary has increased their number of births per woman from 1.23 ten years ago to 1.55 today by giving tax credits for new families.
        • chaostheory 4y ago
          It’s still not enough for even replenishment, especially when our economic systems demand growth.
          • tored 4y ago
            Then we should reform our economic system, endless growth is not viable, especially if you take into account climate and environmental issues. Again, band aid solutions does not work in the long run. We need to adress the real issue.
            • chaostheory 4y ago
              That’s really easy to say, but much harder to execute. Japan has been in stagflation for decades now. They still haven’t addressed the issue. The reason is because there’s current no known solution for it since centralized planning doesn’t work. If anyone has both the capabity & incentive for finding this answer, it would be them. Immigration is still the logical choice until the solution is found.
              • andrekandre 4y ago
                > centralized planning doesn’t work. who said anything about centralized planning?
    • kfajdsl 4y ago
      If you just make it easier to have kids, people will have them. It's hard to justify bringing a child into this world when both would-be parents have to work to make ends meet and they can't afford childcare.
      • chaostheory 4y ago
        It doesn’t matter. The birth rate will still drop. Accounting for ALL social issues including “making it easier to have kids”, the birth rate will still drop because male fertility keeps dropping in any country that’s reached a certain level of industrialization. This includes BOTH developed and developing nations. There’s no definitive culprit, but many researchers believe male infertility is being caused by the endocrine disrupters that leech from plastic products that we use for food applications.
      • AdrianB1 4y ago
        Having kids is quite easy. Most of my colleagues that don't have any kids got into this situation because they pursued careers (long live the corporations selling dreams about careers) and then at 40 years old they figured out they cannot have kids anymore, even with fertility treatments they now afford. The younger ones that are still age 25 to 30 strongly believe it is too early for having kids and they postpone that for another 10-15 years.
        • lotsofpulp 4y ago
          Having kids is easy for a man. For a woman, it is anything but. And women’s freedom to choose when and how many and who to have children with is what has caused birthrates to decline. From what I can tell, women have been eating the true costs of birthing and raising children since forever. Now they can choose the terms under which they are willing to subject themselves to the risks and effects of childbirth, breastfeeding, and child rearing, so the “free” market should help see what the appropriate price will be.
          • AdrianB1 4y ago
            Of the women that have kids and I talked to, none complained that having kids is not easy. I know women that after having the kid they planned for, decided to have 2 or 3, even 4 and it was their decision, not their husband's. The only women I heard complaining about having kids are the ones that have none, which is a bit strange - they have only second hand experiences, if any, of having kids. Yes, now the future of the human race is practically at the hand of the women only. So far it is not going well, as a society and as a race.
    • hueyluey 4y ago
      Are you including Japan as part of the "west"?
  • tored 4y ago
    The thing is if the idea is that women should equally participate in the labour market then child births will decline. Thus if immigrants already has or adopts the Japanese way of living then child births will still be low. Or if immigrants have high childbirths then women will not equally participate in the labour market, therefore that family only has one or fewer incomes in a high tax society that is designed for two persons per family taxable income, thus that family will probably be a net loss for tax payers. > Imo it’s a big reason the US eventually surpassed Europe When was that? If I'm reading the stats correctly for Japan 1960 94 million, ~50% labour participation rate for women, ~4 million child births, ~1 million abortions Today 126 million, ~80% labour participation rate for women, ~800 000 child births, ~150 000 abortions.
    • chaostheory 4y ago
      Accounting for social changes, birthrates would still be on the decline in developed countries due to declining year over year male fertility. ie if we outlawed abortion and women didn’t work, it would still be decreasing You would still need immigration to make up for the losses
      • tored 4y ago
        If Japan went from the current child birth rate to same same rate as Hungary then Japan would be almost be at equilibrium, Japan has the same child birth rate as Hungary ten years ago before Hungary added a tax credit program for new families.
        • chaostheory 4y ago
          Almost isn’t good enough. Our current economic system also demands growth and not stagnation. Immigration is still better which is one reason many European governments changed their stances on it.
          • tored 4y ago
            Oh, so you want low skilled immigration to Japan like in Europe, not high skilled immigration. How would that help anything? Sweden has about ~5 physicians per 1000 people, largest migration groups to Sweden, Syrians has a rate about ~1.3, Iraqis ~0.7, Indians 0.9, Pakistani 1.1, Somalis ~0.02. And then you have other important public skilled professions like teachers & educators, law enforcement, health services etc. Thus low skilled immigration increases shortages on high skilled professions.
  • BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    >Historically, while immigration does have some downsides especially if your system has a lot of entitlements, the pros outweigh the cons. You have to be far, far more specific. Both real estate and the job markets are already suffocating the average young adult in most developed countries. Your solution proposes to put more pressure on both of those markets, for the sake of another population. Young adults aren't going to see the benefits of this for a long time. Younger generations likely won't for a good while, either. Additionally, by pumping in more people from outside, you're specifically pressuring skilled workers who put more thought to popping out babies than just doing the deed. There will be some semblance of resentment potential parents feel they can't reasonably have kids in a country already squeezing them things out at the current population size, despite wanting to. You know, the exact same thing happening in most countries today. Even if Japan doesn't have similar problems with RE, the population isn't exactly waiting for immigrants willing to accept poor work conditions and pressure other candidates to do the same. >Imo it’s a big reason why the US eventually surpassed Europe You just going to conveniently skip multiple events leaving Europe in shambles and setting the US up to be in prime position to take over the global economy?
    • chaostheory 4y ago
      > You have to be far, far more specific. I don’t have the energy or time. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b... https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigra... > Both real estate and the job markets are already suffocating the average young adult in most developed countries. > Additionally, by pumping in more people from outside, you're specifically pressuring skilled workers who put more thought to popping out babies than just doing the deed. You’re blaming this solely or mainly on immigration? You’re also going to have to be more specific. > You just going to conveniently skip multiple events leaving Europe in shambles and setting the US up to be in prime position to take over the global economy? Even without the wars, the US already had a trajectory of supreme power. We had the natural resources & geographical advantages, as well as the size and quality of our population which was positively impacted by immigration.This is why the UK pondered going to war with us again. This was the US plan to counter it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
  • wizofaus 4y ago
    And yet as someone young and skilled and keen to spend time living/ working there there's really no readily available visa options (unless I formally marry my de facto spouse)
  • windexh8er 4y ago
    Immigration won't solve the long term declining birthrates because it's a globally systemic problem. Moving people from one country to another won't actually solve the population decline globally - which is needed to support the broader global financial trade markets that have propped up the golden financial age we've experienced over the last 70 years. "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" has been a great read so far (about halfway through it as of this comment) and the author, Peter Zeihan, dedicates a significant portion of the book to discussing the problem of population decline in-depth.
    • wizofaus 4y ago
      Obviously our economies are going to need to find a way to adapt to declining populations within the next few decades, and there's something to be said for countries like Japan being ahead of the curve there, but at this stage it's hard to see how they can adapt quickly enough without avoiding significant economic disruption.
  • barrysteve 4y ago
    Mitigation isn't a solution. The immigrant children will struggle to have kids as well. The point of a government is to support human life. If the system is prefering wealth and control over human life, why bother with it? The gov is openly failing at it's job to create more families. Which is it's tax paying base.
    • ehhhhhhhhh 4y ago
• hueyluey 4y ago
  >integration has huge costs The point is whether is has more immediate benefits than costs. My sense is that it usually does (immigrant population contributes more economically that what they cost in taxes), at least in the countries I've checked. The exception might be countries that accept a huge amount of refugees (I dunno, just speculating) If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
  • tored 4y ago
    It depends entirely on what kind of immigration you are talking about, there are empirical evidence that certain type of immigration can be beneficial, but it also exist empirical evidence of the contrary, thus making a general claim is not possible without looking at the specifics, i.e. which immigrant group to what country and in what time.