3 ms·
Canada, like most other global north countries (regions), cannot maintain its economy - at least in the expected way, that is of ever-increasing GDP as has been
by ambientenv 3y ago
Canada, like most other global north countries (regions), cannot maintain its economy - at least in the expected way, that is of ever-increasing GDP as has been the trend for the last 75+ years - based upon birth rate alone. We are below the replacement rate. Demographics, another aspect of the so-called poly crisis whereby we see and interact with the world through the lens of the left-brain hemisphere, isolated and reductionist, rather than a necessary and more holistic "big picture" global view.
For an interesting and relatively plain language view:
https://www.ecosophia.net/an-unfamiliar-world/ https://www.ecosophia.net/an-unfamiliar-world/
- asdf6969 3y agoWe could reduce our immigration rate by over 90% and still have net-positive growth. Why is birth rate relevant?
- gloryjulio 3y agoThis is a bad argument. The birthrate is bad IS because the economy is badly ran. The per capita gdp is shrinking and people just can't afford the kids in Canada. Canada economy is essentially controlled by various cartels. The housing crisis is manufactured. Importing people is a vicious circle. If you really want a positive example about how a Developed country can be with an ok birthrate without much immigration. Look at Japan
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoIs the last one a joke? (I'm asking for real if it was sarcasm) From my understanding, Japan birthrate is dramatic. If it is not intended as a joke, and I completely apologize upfront, the tone can't be conveyed through chat, could you expand a bit? My poor knowledge was that Japan's birthrate is possibly the example of "things going bad"
- gloryjulio 3y agoNot a joke. Considering Japan has almost 0 immigration birthrate, the population is almost purely domestic, the number is really not that bad. China and Korea are much worse.
- ricksunny 3y ago>cannot maintain its economy - at least in the expected way, that is of ever-increasing GDP as has been the trend for the last 75+ years - based upon birth rate alone. We are below the replacement rate. For analysis of any arbitrary economy, why should the economic-performance layer be in any way coupled to the number-of-people-living-in-the-country layer? I've been through two microeconomics classes, and one macroeconomics class, and none of the professors said "By the way in order for our theories to hold up you need to birth more people, so get cracking."