4 ms·

I'm watching for these countrues to open up immigration. China will have more than enough internal migration to last for a very long time. But Korea, via its n

I'm watching for these countrues to open up immigration. China will have more than enough internal migration to last for a very long time. But Korea, via its new digital nomad and culture visas seems to be opening up. If current trends presist we're headed towards a future where people from high population growth countries end up immigrating. I actually don't see this as a problem. The world is full of willing workers. They might just need a visa

mwbajor 3y ago
Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? It seems to be astroturfed alot. Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?
- adriancr 3y ago
  > Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers? For that to happen, resources need to be reallocated from somewhere else towards this. For that to happen, people would need to express this via voting. > Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done.
  - mwbajor 3y ago
    "Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done." Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays.
    - adriancr 3y ago
      > Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. Sure, and most of the world has much better lives already because of that then their parents. This is excluding US which had a unique position after ww2 which has eroded to some extent but is still much better then the rest of the world.. > But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays. I would guess that is dismissive on purpose, people saying that are avoiding a potentially sensitive topic which they do not care to engage in. (which I probably should as well, so yes, ethnic food is the reason)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  > Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? All else being equal, more GDP (per person) means more wealth per person. More housing space, more heating, more antibiotics and children's sledges. So yeah, I support more GDP. > Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family We've tried that; doesn't work. Not much at least. Sweden and France have had a bit of success, but not enough to even get back to sustainable fertility levels, let alone natural population growth.
pi-e-sigma 3y ago
The better solution would be to fix the problems causing low fertility.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  Why would we want to do that? Low fertility is a solution for many of our other problems, related to ecological overshoot. It will be vastly easier to reduce energy consumption and pollution output (including of course CO2) in a world where the population is no longer rising.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    The fertility only needs to be increased back to the level providing stable population size, it doesn't have to be ramped up to the level causing the population to grow again.
    - marssaxman 3y ago
      I see no reason we shouldn't stabilize the population at a size rather lower than the one we currently have. This is a problem our grandchildren can solve, if they want to.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
        The problem is our current economic system will not survive shrinking population. We know already that ever growing population is not sustainable, either. But the stable population size is still workable within the current system.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - trealira 3y ago
        The scheme of there being a retirement age when you get older relies on there being a lot more young than old people. If, hypothetically, there were a 50/50 split between the retired and the working, the living standards of the working would decline and working aged people wouldn't themselves be able to retire at the same age as those before them. They'd probably resent the old retired people and the previous generations for both having no children and retiring, leaving them to deal with the worsening living conditions.
lumost 3y ago
It is fundamentally strange to look at a society which stops having children to the extent that it will no longer exist within 2-4 generations as having a problem of "not enough workers." Perhaps part of the problem is that we see individuals only as workers?
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  The focus on workers is a result of the fundamental problem of depopulation being economic. One family growing old without replacing themselves with a gaggle of grandchildren is one thing, but an entire country becoming predominantly retired is an economic disaster for those retirees. It's about maintaining economic growth so that old people can live off their investments, which requires the post-productive folk to be outnumbered by still-productive folk.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    You know, I spent some time in college learning economics, and lots of time after that listening to podcasts about economics ("Planet Money" has long been great), but like almost every other belief I had when I was younger, I seem to have lost this one as well. Supposedly we've had decades of productivity growth, so you'd think that it would be possible for a smaller cohort of workers to keep everything going, and yet it is apparently a creeping disaster that there may not be enough of them to maintain modern civilization in the not-so-distant future. Like many aspects of modern life, it just isn't really adding up to me.
  - pydry 3y ago
    It's funny how AI/automation discussions are dominated by a jobpocalypse but when the topic is demographics or (god forbid) putting down the retirement age suddenly it's a lack of workerpocalypse and "quick, find some immigrants!" There is a glaring contradiction there that I think has more than a little to do with the way capital dictates the shape of modern political discourse. I also think we are being subtly prepared not for a crisis of demography or a crisis of automation but instead a crisis of oligarchy.
- 999900000999 3y ago

mwbajor 3y ago

Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? It seems to be astroturfed alot. Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?

adriancr 3y ago
> Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers? For that to happen, resources need to be reallocated from somewhere else towards this. For that to happen, people would need to express this via voting. > Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done.
- mwbajor 3y ago
  "Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done." Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays.
  - adriancr 3y ago
    > Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. Sure, and most of the world has much better lives already because of that then their parents. This is excluding US which had a unique position after ww2 which has eroded to some extent but is still much better then the rest of the world.. > But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays. I would guess that is dismissive on purpose, people saying that are avoiding a potentially sensitive topic which they do not care to engage in. (which I probably should as well, so yes, ethnic food is the reason)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dukeyukey 3y ago
> Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? All else being equal, more GDP (per person) means more wealth per person. More housing space, more heating, more antibiotics and children's sledges. So yeah, I support more GDP. > Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family We've tried that; doesn't work. Not much at least. Sweden and France have had a bit of success, but not enough to even get back to sustainable fertility levels, let alone natural population growth.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago

The better solution would be to fix the problems causing low fertility.

marssaxman 3y ago
Why would we want to do that? Low fertility is a solution for many of our other problems, related to ecological overshoot. It will be vastly easier to reduce energy consumption and pollution output (including of course CO2) in a world where the population is no longer rising.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  The fertility only needs to be increased back to the level providing stable population size, it doesn't have to be ramped up to the level causing the population to grow again.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    I see no reason we shouldn't stabilize the population at a size rather lower than the one we currently have. This is a problem our grandchildren can solve, if they want to.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      The problem is our current economic system will not survive shrinking population. We know already that ever growing population is not sustainable, either. But the stable population size is still workable within the current system.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - trealira 3y ago
      The scheme of there being a retirement age when you get older relies on there being a lot more young than old people. If, hypothetically, there were a 50/50 split between the retired and the working, the living standards of the working would decline and working aged people wouldn't themselves be able to retire at the same age as those before them. They'd probably resent the old retired people and the previous generations for both having no children and retiring, leaving them to deal with the worsening living conditions.

lumost 3y ago

It is fundamentally strange to look at a society which stops having children to the extent that it will no longer exist within 2-4 generations as having a problem of "not enough workers." Perhaps part of the problem is that we see individuals only as workers?

jazzyjackson 3y ago
The focus on workers is a result of the fundamental problem of depopulation being economic. One family growing old without replacing themselves with a gaggle of grandchildren is one thing, but an entire country becoming predominantly retired is an economic disaster for those retirees. It's about maintaining economic growth so that old people can live off their investments, which requires the post-productive folk to be outnumbered by still-productive folk.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  You know, I spent some time in college learning economics, and lots of time after that listening to podcasts about economics ("Planet Money" has long been great), but like almost every other belief I had when I was younger, I seem to have lost this one as well. Supposedly we've had decades of productivity growth, so you'd think that it would be possible for a smaller cohort of workers to keep everything going, and yet it is apparently a creeping disaster that there may not be enough of them to maintain modern civilization in the not-so-distant future. Like many aspects of modern life, it just isn't really adding up to me.
- pydry 3y ago
  It's funny how AI/automation discussions are dominated by a jobpocalypse but when the topic is demographics or (god forbid) putting down the retirement age suddenly it's a lack of workerpocalypse and "quick, find some immigrants!" There is a glaring contradiction there that I think has more than a little to do with the way capital dictates the shape of modern political discourse. I also think we are being subtly prepared not for a crisis of demography or a crisis of automation but instead a crisis of oligarchy.
999900000999 3y ago