3 ms·

The combined population of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and the EU is 916 million. Let's be generous and say they're all "solving" their populat

The combined population of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and the EU is 916 million. Let's be generous and say they're all "solving" their population crises with immigration. The combined population of China, Japan, and South Korea alone is 1586 million. They have negligible immigration. So if "vast majority" is weighted by the number of people (the only sensible measure - Monaco and China should not have equal weight), then no, only a minority of countries are using immigration as a solution - just 37% of the countries I listed, by population.

filoleg 4y ago
I feel like grouping China along with Japan+South Korea is a bit disingenuous. China only recently has stopped their massive population growth and is still #1 in terms of the population count in the entire world. Japan and SK have been on the decline in terms of population for quite a while, and were never close to having a massive population of such magnitude. Just to contrast how meaningless it feels to combine them - if you exclude Japan+SK from your count, the number becomes ~1411mil, barely a -11%.
- nhchris 4y ago
  China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've just had their first year of population decline. Meanwhile the US is still growing (or rather, being added to) at 0.5%/year. So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Sources: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population
  - filoleg 4y ago
    > So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Because you aren't grouping China with Netherlands or the US (which are the countries you are using to defend your rationale for including China), you are grouping China with Japan and South Korea. And the numbers there aren't even comparable. China has just experienced it's first decline of 0.02%, while Japan's decline last year was 0.53%[0]. The factor of nearly x25 is the reason for why grouping them together seems useless at best and misleading at worst. 0. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population
    - nhchris 4y ago
      You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the grouping I used. They are countries with population crises, divided by whether they're solving them with immigration or not. That's it. So why would Japan's crisis being worse than China's make the grouping misleading? I cited the US and Netherlands as random examples of countries with population crises (absent immigration) as proof that China is facing a similar situation that drove those countries to choose immigration.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        Major apologies, and thanks for pointing out and summarizing the point of confusion I had earlier. While I still might not necessarily agree with the conclusion you've reached, I can clearly see now why you grouped the countries the way you did, and your argument makes way more sense to me as the result.

filoleg 4y ago

I feel like grouping China along with Japan+South Korea is a bit disingenuous. China only recently has stopped their massive population growth and is still #1 in terms of the population count in the entire world. Japan and SK have been on the decline in terms of population for quite a while, and were never close to having a massive population of such magnitude. Just to contrast how meaningless it feels to combine them - if you exclude Japan+SK from your count, the number becomes ~1411mil, barely a -11%.

nhchris 4y ago
China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've just had their first year of population decline. Meanwhile the US is still growing (or rather, being added to) at 0.5%/year. So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Sources: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population
- filoleg 4y ago
  > So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Because you aren't grouping China with Netherlands or the US (which are the countries you are using to defend your rationale for including China), you are grouping China with Japan and South Korea. And the numbers there aren't even comparable. China has just experienced it's first decline of 0.02%, while Japan's decline last year was 0.53%[0]. The factor of nearly x25 is the reason for why grouping them together seems useless at best and misleading at worst. 0. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population
  - nhchris 4y ago
    You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the grouping I used. They are countries with population crises, divided by whether they're solving them with immigration or not. That's it. So why would Japan's crisis being worse than China's make the grouping misleading? I cited the US and Netherlands as random examples of countries with population crises (absent immigration) as proof that China is facing a similar situation that drove those countries to choose immigration.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      Major apologies, and thanks for pointing out and summarizing the point of confusion I had earlier. While I still might not necessarily agree with the conclusion you've reached, I can clearly see now why you grouped the countries the way you did, and your argument makes way more sense to me as the result.