3 ms·

> To a degree this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration. But this only works to a degree and at a larger scale it is still a zero sum ga

by vidarh 3y ago

> To a degree this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration. But this only works to a degree and at a larger scale it is still a zero sum game. It's going to increasingly become a challenge. China's population is contracting. India has hit replacement and will start to see decline barring immigration over the next 20-30 years. Only sub-Saharan Africa is left with above replacement birth rates. We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts. At the same time it's going to have significant economic ramifications when more and more market categories stop getting "free growth" from growing population sizes.

em-bee 3y ago
It's going to increasingly become a challenge. China's population is contracting. i think the economic differences and the population density still make immigration a viable strategy for some time to come, despite contracting population everywhere. the future will be that the population in every larger city will consists of least a quarter chinese and indian (and eventually african as well).
- vidarh 3y ago
  It will be a viable strategy for decades, you're right, in as much as UN population projections don't show an actual global population decline until around 2100 or so. The challenges that will bring, though, is policy, and which countries are attractive enough to "sit back" vs. being forced to offer increasingly attractive incentives, and where it will cause substantial political complications. E.g. China is notorious for it being near impossible to permanently settle as an immigrant. I expect that aside from increasingly drastic measures to try to bring the fertility rate back up you'll see their first attempts be to entice the diaspora back to China, secondly an increase in rhetoric about One China towards Taiwan, and only well after those attempts to loosen up visa requirements for foreigners with no ancestral ties to China. We'll see the return of diasporas increasingly becoming a problem for countries that has come to rely on certain immigrant flows. A lot of countries will find political tension between forces wanting to more actively court immigrants vs. anti-immigrant groups becoming increasingly challenging and a major economic issue.
PeterisP 3y ago
> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts. This has an implied assumption that either more population is always better or that for all of the countries the current population is below the optimum level. What if for some countries the best population size - the one that provides the best quality of life for its citizens - is close to the current one, not larger? What if for some countries the most favorable population size is below the one they currently have?
- vidarh 3y ago
  It has the implied assumption that a functioning economy is linked strongly to the number of people of working age relative to the number of people outside it, and part of the population decline comes with an inversion of the population pyramid where an increasing proportion of the population is retired. As such, even if there is a "best" population size below the current population size, you will face massive upheaval if the decline toward that size isn't happening slowly enough that you can offset that either with technology, temporary workers, or just grit. You also have no reason to assume the drop will stop at whatever level you want, and so you will see even countries where people do think some reduction is fine start to aggressively compete to hold on people or attract immigrants at whatever level they feel will give them a soft-enough landing and then stabilization. E.g. you can look to Italy over the coming years. Italy is already in population decline, yet has a government many consider far-right and anti-immigrant - clearly, Italy is not ready to loosen up immigration to stem it yet, and is willing to accept even increasing the rate of its population decline while trying to address the underlying fertility rate. Personally, I expect to see a major change in policy from Italy once this really starts to bite, but their current unemployment rate will still buffer them for a few more years (and once it drops, it might well create a slight rebound, but even if that happens, it's unlikely to do more than slow the decline slightly, and won't address the labour market for more than two decades). If I'm right, you should start to see the tone change once the unemployment rate drops a bit further and pressure from businesses in need of labour starts affecting Italian politics more, followed first by increased attempts at appealing to European migrants first, with e.g. tax breaks and the like, before they eventually give in and start rolling back the restrictions on non-EU migration.
caskstrength 3y ago
> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts. And yet we are seeing more and more walls (literally and figuratively) that rich countries put in the way. Even for "desirable" people immigrating and naturalizing in a western country the whole process is quite degrading, all the quotas and queues for H1B/Green cards, constant threat of deportation if person lost a job and couldn't find another one in very short time period, arbitrary delays and constrains on getting citizenship, etc.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Because it hasn't started to bite enough yet for the most desirable targets, coupled with politicians that have painted themselves into corners and are struggling to find ways out. E.g. in the UK, the last several Conservative governments have on one hand presented themselves as tough on immigration, with deals to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (a few hours worth of applicants is all the deal can accommodate), putting them on barges (another few hours worth), turning back boat refugees, etc., while at the same time presiding over the largest increase in net migration in British history. Predictably the conflict between that image and reality is starting to cause problems for them, and while immigration numbers are still high enough despite a process that is intentionally hostile, eventually the supply of people wanting to come will dip below the numbers that still allow the UK to be selective about whom to accept. We've already gotten a slight taste of that with the sharp dip in EU/EEA migrants, who, as it turns out don't feel the UK is worth it enough to go through the immigration process vs. just showing up the way we could before (I'm in the UK with EU/EEA Settled status), and it's caused assorted groups complaining.. It will take until you have broader labour shortages before you see the real pressure though - especially countries buffered by unemployment will be able to put it off a bit longer, but when it hits, it will hit hard and just raising fertility rates won't be sufficient, because it has a lag of 2 decades of worsening conditions before it even starts reversing the drop in the labour supply.

by vidarh 3y ago

em-bee 3y ago

It's going to increasingly become a challenge. China's population is contracting. i think the economic differences and the population density still make immigration a viable strategy for some time to come, despite contracting population everywhere. the future will be that the population in every larger city will consists of least a quarter chinese and indian (and eventually african as well).

vidarh 3y ago
It will be a viable strategy for decades, you're right, in as much as UN population projections don't show an actual global population decline until around 2100 or so. The challenges that will bring, though, is policy, and which countries are attractive enough to "sit back" vs. being forced to offer increasingly attractive incentives, and where it will cause substantial political complications. E.g. China is notorious for it being near impossible to permanently settle as an immigrant. I expect that aside from increasingly drastic measures to try to bring the fertility rate back up you'll see their first attempts be to entice the diaspora back to China, secondly an increase in rhetoric about One China towards Taiwan, and only well after those attempts to loosen up visa requirements for foreigners with no ancestral ties to China. We'll see the return of diasporas increasingly becoming a problem for countries that has come to rely on certain immigrant flows. A lot of countries will find political tension between forces wanting to more actively court immigrants vs. anti-immigrant groups becoming increasingly challenging and a major economic issue.

PeterisP 3y ago

> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts. This has an implied assumption that either more population is always better or that for all of the countries the current population is below the optimum level. What if for some countries the best population size - the one that provides the best quality of life for its citizens - is close to the current one, not larger? What if for some countries the most favorable population size is below the one they currently have?

vidarh 3y ago
It has the implied assumption that a functioning economy is linked strongly to the number of people of working age relative to the number of people outside it, and part of the population decline comes with an inversion of the population pyramid where an increasing proportion of the population is retired. As such, even if there is a "best" population size below the current population size, you will face massive upheaval if the decline toward that size isn't happening slowly enough that you can offset that either with technology, temporary workers, or just grit. You also have no reason to assume the drop will stop at whatever level you want, and so you will see even countries where people do think some reduction is fine start to aggressively compete to hold on people or attract immigrants at whatever level they feel will give them a soft-enough landing and then stabilization. E.g. you can look to Italy over the coming years. Italy is already in population decline, yet has a government many consider far-right and anti-immigrant - clearly, Italy is not ready to loosen up immigration to stem it yet, and is willing to accept even increasing the rate of its population decline while trying to address the underlying fertility rate. Personally, I expect to see a major change in policy from Italy once this really starts to bite, but their current unemployment rate will still buffer them for a few more years (and once it drops, it might well create a slight rebound, but even if that happens, it's unlikely to do more than slow the decline slightly, and won't address the labour market for more than two decades). If I'm right, you should start to see the tone change once the unemployment rate drops a bit further and pressure from businesses in need of labour starts affecting Italian politics more, followed first by increased attempts at appealing to European migrants first, with e.g. tax breaks and the like, before they eventually give in and start rolling back the restrictions on non-EU migration.

caskstrength 3y ago

> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts. And yet we are seeing more and more walls (literally and figuratively) that rich countries put in the way. Even for "desirable" people immigrating and naturalizing in a western country the whole process is quite degrading, all the quotas and queues for H1B/Green cards, constant threat of deportation if person lost a job and couldn't find another one in very short time period, arbitrary delays and constrains on getting citizenship, etc.

vidarh 3y ago
Because it hasn't started to bite enough yet for the most desirable targets, coupled with politicians that have painted themselves into corners and are struggling to find ways out. E.g. in the UK, the last several Conservative governments have on one hand presented themselves as tough on immigration, with deals to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (a few hours worth of applicants is all the deal can accommodate), putting them on barges (another few hours worth), turning back boat refugees, etc., while at the same time presiding over the largest increase in net migration in British history. Predictably the conflict between that image and reality is starting to cause problems for them, and while immigration numbers are still high enough despite a process that is intentionally hostile, eventually the supply of people wanting to come will dip below the numbers that still allow the UK to be selective about whom to accept. We've already gotten a slight taste of that with the sharp dip in EU/EEA migrants, who, as it turns out don't feel the UK is worth it enough to go through the immigration process vs. just showing up the way we could before (I'm in the UK with EU/EEA Settled status), and it's caused assorted groups complaining.. It will take until you have broader labour shortages before you see the real pressure though - especially countries buffered by unemployment will be able to put it off a bit longer, but when it hits, it will hit hard and just raising fertility rates won't be sufficient, because it has a lag of 2 decades of worsening conditions before it even starts reversing the drop in the labour supply.