3 ms·

Those three examples all implemented some kind of austerity, which reduced safety nets and increased economic insecurity. Western societies are aging. If you d

by Herring 8mo ago

Those three examples all implemented some kind of austerity, which reduced safety nets and increased economic insecurity. Western societies are aging. If you don't take in immigrants (which is basically the government becoming the far right), you're on a timer. Your economy will slow, insecurity will rise, and the far right will surge anyway. It's happening to Japan.

rayiner 8mo ago
The idea that there's been meaningful austerity isn't borne out by the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?time=2000..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... There was a dip after the financial crisis and a blip that returned to normal after COVID. But Germany, Italy, and the UK all spend a slightly greater share of their GDP on social welfare now than they did in 2000. And while the U.S. has less social spending overall, the trend shows the opposite of your story. In 2000, when the U.S. elected pro-immigration George W. Bush, social spending was 14.1%. In 2024, when people voted for "mass deportations" Trump, social spending was 19.8% of GDP. The U.S. was spending more of its economy on social welfare in 2024 than Australia, Canada, and the U.K. were spending back in the early 2000s--but the far right is much stronger today than it was back then.
- Herring 8mo ago
  That graph is really deceptive. Eg the Greece curve is going up (!!), which can make you think there was no austerity. Probably the GDP in the denominator shrunk faster than the govt could cut pensions.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    No, real GDP (inflation adjusted) grew considerably in Germany and the U.K. over that time, and was stable in Italy: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0. All three countries spend a slightly greater share of an overall larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000.
    - Herring 8mo ago
      Well how much have the countries aged? In that case you should expect it to go up, maybe it's still a lot less than it should be. I'm a statistician. That (first) graph is a case study in how to lie with statistics. They should teach it in class. I'm out, I recommend you spend some time reading about this issue. Inequality and welfare cuts leading to the rise in the far right is fairly well established. One (misleading) graph doesn't disprove it. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts-are-fuelling-far-right-rise-warns-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        I’m citing a fact that’s plain in the data. Germany, the UK, and Italy spend slightly more of a larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000. If you have a contrary case based on different data, then make it. We’re intelligent people here, we don’t need to resort to appeals to authority, especially in a subject like political sentiment that isn’t amenable to expert analysis. This stuff isn’t rocket science.
        Herring 8mo ago
        I'm not having this conversation. It's like creationism or anti-vaccine. You can solve this YOURSELF in 10 seconds by googling "UK austerity" or "Germany austerity" but instead you just want to argue from ignorance. Get informed first.
        rayiner 8mo ago
        It’s funny you’re complaining about creationism when you’re the one invoking social studies papers as scripture for ideas you can’t explain yourself.
      - galangalalgol 8mo ago
        Taking in immigrants is a short term solution. Within one generation their fertility rate drops to match the local one. Which means you have to keep bringing in new ones. That means there is never time to integrate, leading to cultural clashes and second class labor. And unless you are pulling from Africa or a couple middle eastern countries, the source of immigration is also declining in population at this point so it isn't a permanent fix. That said, the fix doesn't need to be permanent. The deceleration of fertility rates is the problem, not the velocity simply being negative. Japan is almost through their problem, as they started it first. Soon they will be on a constant downward slope. Which can be handled by productivity gains. Trying to use unlimited immigration to handle the deceleration bump will create more issues than it solves. Unless maybe if you are China... Their deceleration looks like a sharp edged cliff instead of a hill. Their productivity gains are also very non linear, so maybe that will make it less horrible.

by Herring 8mo ago

rayiner 8mo ago

The idea that there's been meaningful austerity isn't borne out by the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?time=2000..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... There was a dip after the financial crisis and a blip that returned to normal after COVID. But Germany, Italy, and the UK all spend a slightly greater share of their GDP on social welfare now than they did in 2000. And while the U.S. has less social spending overall, the trend shows the opposite of your story. In 2000, when the U.S. elected pro-immigration George W. Bush, social spending was 14.1%. In 2024, when people voted for "mass deportations" Trump, social spending was 19.8% of GDP. The U.S. was spending more of its economy on social welfare in 2024 than Australia, Canada, and the U.K. were spending back in the early 2000s--but the far right is much stronger today than it was back then.

Herring 8mo ago
That graph is really deceptive. Eg the Greece curve is going up (!!), which can make you think there was no austerity. Probably the GDP in the denominator shrunk faster than the govt could cut pensions.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  No, real GDP (inflation adjusted) grew considerably in Germany and the U.K. over that time, and was stable in Italy: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0. All three countries spend a slightly greater share of an overall larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000.
  - Herring 8mo ago
    Well how much have the countries aged? In that case you should expect it to go up, maybe it's still a lot less than it should be. I'm a statistician. That (first) graph is a case study in how to lie with statistics. They should teach it in class. I'm out, I recommend you spend some time reading about this issue. Inequality and welfare cuts leading to the rise in the far right is fairly well established. One (misleading) graph doesn't disprove it. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts-are-fuelling-far-right-rise-warns-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      I’m citing a fact that’s plain in the data. Germany, the UK, and Italy spend slightly more of a larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000. If you have a contrary case based on different data, then make it. We’re intelligent people here, we don’t need to resort to appeals to authority, especially in a subject like political sentiment that isn’t amenable to expert analysis. This stuff isn’t rocket science.
      - Herring 8mo ago
        I'm not having this conversation. It's like creationism or anti-vaccine. You can solve this YOURSELF in 10 seconds by googling "UK austerity" or "Germany austerity" but instead you just want to argue from ignorance. Get informed first.
        rayiner 8mo ago
        It’s funny you’re complaining about creationism when you’re the one invoking social studies papers as scripture for ideas you can’t explain yourself.
    - galangalalgol 8mo ago
      Taking in immigrants is a short term solution. Within one generation their fertility rate drops to match the local one. Which means you have to keep bringing in new ones. That means there is never time to integrate, leading to cultural clashes and second class labor. And unless you are pulling from Africa or a couple middle eastern countries, the source of immigration is also declining in population at this point so it isn't a permanent fix. That said, the fix doesn't need to be permanent. The deceleration of fertility rates is the problem, not the velocity simply being negative. Japan is almost through their problem, as they started it first. Soon they will be on a constant downward slope. Which can be handled by productivity gains. Trying to use unlimited immigration to handle the deceleration bump will create more issues than it solves. Unless maybe if you are China... Their deceleration looks like a sharp edged cliff instead of a hill. Their productivity gains are also very non linear, so maybe that will make it less horrible.