7 ms·

With a fertility rate of 1.64 as of 2020, the US needs all the new babies they can get.

29athrowaway 3y ago
Why? By the time they can enter the workforce it will be all AI and robots.
vkou 3y ago
No, it doesn't. What it needs is to figure out how to turn the colossal productivity gains automation gives us into keeping people fed, sheltered, and cared for. If your society requires population growth to not grind to a screeching halt, what you have is a pyramid scheme. Either people aren't working enough[1], they are working on useless things[2], or someone at the top is siphoning too much wealth for themselves[3]. [1] Not the problem in the US. [2] Half of the problem in the US. [3] The other half of the problem in the US.
- vwcx 3y ago
  Amen. It's disappointing to think that the general consensus on tech/automation is that it's only there to drive an economy rather than what it could do for the baseline of "being human".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Societies that don't have long-term replacement-level fertility are functionally extinct. The civilization you belong to is effectively dying, and you're worried about whether you'll personally be comfortable as it all ends. This has implications. Those who don't want it to die are best off severing whatever responsibility and connections they have to people like yourself. From their point of view, all resources are wasted on those who don't want to keep civilization alive. In a triage situation, such people won't get priority when it comes to being "fed, sheltered, and care for". Your first counter-argument will probably be "well they're wrong". Which is irrelevant. They will continue to behave as if they're correct.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > Those who don't want it to die are best off severing whatever responsibility and connections they have to people like yourself. The same could be said about those people. They aren't aiming towards a steady state society, they are aiming towards tumor-like exponential growth, which will in the long-term, lead civilization to collapse. The person who cut down the last tree on Easter Island, and all... Civilization, and the state exists to serve people, not the other way around. There's a name for an ideology that reverses those priorities and obligations - and that name is fascism.
- lumb63 3y ago
  > what you have is a pyramid scheme. Yes, that is exactly what we have. Our social security and Medicare systems are nearing insolvency because they are Ponzi schemes that rely on growth. Growth that didn’t happen. That pyramid is built on either increased taxes for the next generation or decreased benefits for the prior. Most Americans’ net worth is predominantly composed of their house. Those same houses have had their values propped up by decades of poor financial policy (interest rates trending to zero) because it is politically infeasible that housing prices go down. That pyramid is built on the backs of future generations who are or will be unable to afford housing. Equities and bonds are also a pyramid scheme, in the sense that the same financial policy has propped up asset values. The rise of passive investing, the surplus of cash, and financial policy have propped up asset values far beyond their natural equilibrium point, because it is politically infeasible that stocks go down. That pyramid is built on the lack of future returns coming generations will experience because the prices must eventually regress toward the mean. Not to mention the massive debt bubble, whose interest is another pyramid scheme, wherein past and present generations have voted and continue to vote to saddle future generations with debt that they will not be able to pay. At least here in the US, almost every major wealth creation or preservation system is a pyramid scheme where future generations are on the bottom, and the current generations are at various higher levels of the pyramid.
- boppo1 3y ago
  How did 2 happen? How do we fix it?
  - vkou 3y ago
    It's a natural outcome of markets, which optimize for profit, and lead to insane local maximums, like two competing businesses fighting over the same customers, by bidding against eachother on AdWords spend.
ChrisLTD 3y ago
There are plenty of young people in other countries that would be happy to move here.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Until those countries start seeing the same problem and say no.
  - dazilcher 3y ago
    With a few draconian exceptions, immigration is up to individuals, not their native countries.
- speakfreely 3y ago
  Your government seems to want to make that as difficult as possible to do legally.
  - cudgy 3y ago
    Are you sure? “The United States is home to the highest number of immigrants in the world. An estimated 50.6 million people in the United States—a bit more than 15% of the total population of 331.4 million—were born in a foreign country.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
    - speakfreely 3y ago
      I am very sure. The number of immigrants does not reflect the difficulty of the process and misrepresents the constituents of that group. If you break down your numbers by type of visa, you'll see that chain migration is a major factor (where someone applies for a resident visa as a family member of an existing resident or citizen). If you're a college educated engineer (the type of immigrant the US should be trying to attract) without any family already in the US, good luck to you.
bee_rider 3y ago
Neglecting the point of whether or not we actually need population growth; being multicultural and allowing easy immigration is a defining feature of the US. Our population growth rate is whatever we want it to be.
- speakfreely 3y ago
  Well, our current system very much depends on population growth. Our economic growth requires new consumers and our social programs require new workers who will pay into them. Sudden population shocks like the kind we're on track to experience in the 2030s and 2040s are going to be extremely difficult to deal with.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    If the alternative is growth up to the point of total societal and ecological collapse then I'd prefer gradual change, even if it includes some shocks
    - speakfreely 3y ago
      If you think the climate hasn't been a priority during the unusually peaceful period we've had for the past 80 years, you're going to be really disappointed at the level of collaboration once most of the world is actively in conflict with each other.
frontman1988 3y ago
The US is probably most antifragile to population decline given its history of being a land of immigrants.

Why? By the time they can enter the workforce it will be all AI and robots.

vkou 3y ago

No, it doesn't. What it needs is to figure out how to turn the colossal productivity gains automation gives us into keeping people fed, sheltered, and cared for. If your society requires population growth to not grind to a screeching halt, what you have is a pyramid scheme. Either people aren't working enough[1], they are working on useless things[2], or someone at the top is siphoning too much wealth for themselves[3]. [1] Not the problem in the US. [2] Half of the problem in the US. [3] The other half of the problem in the US.

vwcx 3y ago
Amen. It's disappointing to think that the general consensus on tech/automation is that it's only there to drive an economy rather than what it could do for the baseline of "being human".
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Societies that don't have long-term replacement-level fertility are functionally extinct. The civilization you belong to is effectively dying, and you're worried about whether you'll personally be comfortable as it all ends. This has implications. Those who don't want it to die are best off severing whatever responsibility and connections they have to people like yourself. From their point of view, all resources are wasted on those who don't want to keep civilization alive. In a triage situation, such people won't get priority when it comes to being "fed, sheltered, and care for". Your first counter-argument will probably be "well they're wrong". Which is irrelevant. They will continue to behave as if they're correct.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Those who don't want it to die are best off severing whatever responsibility and connections they have to people like yourself. The same could be said about those people. They aren't aiming towards a steady state society, they are aiming towards tumor-like exponential growth, which will in the long-term, lead civilization to collapse. The person who cut down the last tree on Easter Island, and all... Civilization, and the state exists to serve people, not the other way around. There's a name for an ideology that reverses those priorities and obligations - and that name is fascism.
lumb63 3y ago
> what you have is a pyramid scheme. Yes, that is exactly what we have. Our social security and Medicare systems are nearing insolvency because they are Ponzi schemes that rely on growth. Growth that didn’t happen. That pyramid is built on either increased taxes for the next generation or decreased benefits for the prior. Most Americans’ net worth is predominantly composed of their house. Those same houses have had their values propped up by decades of poor financial policy (interest rates trending to zero) because it is politically infeasible that housing prices go down. That pyramid is built on the backs of future generations who are or will be unable to afford housing. Equities and bonds are also a pyramid scheme, in the sense that the same financial policy has propped up asset values. The rise of passive investing, the surplus of cash, and financial policy have propped up asset values far beyond their natural equilibrium point, because it is politically infeasible that stocks go down. That pyramid is built on the lack of future returns coming generations will experience because the prices must eventually regress toward the mean. Not to mention the massive debt bubble, whose interest is another pyramid scheme, wherein past and present generations have voted and continue to vote to saddle future generations with debt that they will not be able to pay. At least here in the US, almost every major wealth creation or preservation system is a pyramid scheme where future generations are on the bottom, and the current generations are at various higher levels of the pyramid.
boppo1 3y ago
How did 2 happen? How do we fix it?
- vkou 3y ago
  It's a natural outcome of markets, which optimize for profit, and lead to insane local maximums, like two competing businesses fighting over the same customers, by bidding against eachother on AdWords spend.

ChrisLTD 3y ago

There are plenty of young people in other countries that would be happy to move here.

iinnPP 3y ago
Until those countries start seeing the same problem and say no.
- dazilcher 3y ago
  With a few draconian exceptions, immigration is up to individuals, not their native countries.
speakfreely 3y ago
Your government seems to want to make that as difficult as possible to do legally.
- cudgy 3y ago
  Are you sure? “The United States is home to the highest number of immigrants in the world. An estimated 50.6 million people in the United States—a bit more than 15% of the total population of 331.4 million—were born in a foreign country.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
  - speakfreely 3y ago
    I am very sure. The number of immigrants does not reflect the difficulty of the process and misrepresents the constituents of that group. If you break down your numbers by type of visa, you'll see that chain migration is a major factor (where someone applies for a resident visa as a family member of an existing resident or citizen). If you're a college educated engineer (the type of immigrant the US should be trying to attract) without any family already in the US, good luck to you.

bee_rider 3y ago

Neglecting the point of whether or not we actually need population growth; being multicultural and allowing easy immigration is a defining feature of the US. Our population growth rate is whatever we want it to be.

speakfreely 3y ago
Well, our current system very much depends on population growth. Our economic growth requires new consumers and our social programs require new workers who will pay into them. Sudden population shocks like the kind we're on track to experience in the 2030s and 2040s are going to be extremely difficult to deal with.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  If the alternative is growth up to the point of total societal and ecological collapse then I'd prefer gradual change, even if it includes some shocks
  - speakfreely 3y ago
    If you think the climate hasn't been a priority during the unusually peaceful period we've had for the past 80 years, you're going to be really disappointed at the level of collaboration once most of the world is actively in conflict with each other.

frontman1988 3y ago

The US is probably most antifragile to population decline given its history of being a land of immigrants.