It's like a bully kicking and beating you blue then complaining you won't just tell the teacher you're fine.
Like no shit. Multiple "once in a generation" recessions, rent pricing people out of places to live, inflation out the ass on basically everything, all the while wages stay stagnant as fuck. That's not even accounting for the absolute climate disaster we're inheriting.
Of course people are both less able to have kids and less inclined to have kids to put through the grinder of life. The very people complaining about this are the ones who helped create and continue on this scenario!
If only there were people in this world who would want to come to our country . Heck, we could set up a system where employers can post jobs that they have trouble filling and we could match up people outside country who can fill that need. Then, if those people turn out to be decent and moral, we can let them stay in the country permanently.
It is too bad that everyone outside of the country is a foreigner who wants to steal jobs.
Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they've actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.
I've started rolling my eyes at "Who decides?" prompts. Whether it's judging people, interpreting laws, etc.
PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person's immigration application.
This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.
Thank you for responding. My "who decides" comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don't have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.
My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.
If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.
Yes, the real issue is trust. Agreed. The Supreme Court is my example of mistrust. I don't believe every member is upholding their oath to do their job in the interests of the many vs. who is paying them on the side.
I hope you read this as a continuing discussion, not an argument.
Immigrants help out in the short term, but then they and their children realize the same thing that people who already live here do: that wages are too low, and that rent and cost of living is too high to support children.
Plus, corporations can use those immigrants to bust unions and keep wages down and rent prices up. Supply and demand, because we live in an oligrarchic dystopia that doesn't have enough social safety nets to make sure that new workers coming in don't sabotage the ones currently working.
I'm the children of immigrants and hang around with the children of other immigrants, and we're not having children ourselves, or ware waiting until increasingly later ages (minimum 30) because of how expensive it is to live, even without children. It only takes 1 generation to realize that new immigrants will just get stuck in the same rut that non-immigrants are already in.
Adding more people just increases the power of corporations (the real government) to treat workers as disposable objects. It's probably why corporate run governments don't try to stabilize unstable regions, but rather prefer to exploit them until there's a mass migration. More people to use for dangerous labor = more expendables that no one can afford to care about.
Yeah, globalization is a bit of a trap. The short term gains are enticing but we're just pushing off the inevitable.
Plus, on a global scale, it's just people moving around. In the short term it may benefit one country or another, but it's just shuffling what we already have.
The very same reason NATO destroyed Libya's infrastructure including water pipelines and plunged all their inhabitants back to the dark ages back in 2011, and now NATO countries are complaining they are getting full of immigrants. Maybe if they hadn't commited war crimes there they would have stayed there. That waterway increased the country's carrying capacity and destroying it could arguably be classified as genocide.
Then you're just committing them to taking low paying jobs. Don't you see what is going on? This is what happened after the black plague that ended feudalism. We need to stick to our guns and make them increase wages. Your argument to have immigration solve the baby crisis is EXACTLY what business owners want. They WANT to keep wages low with an infinite influx of people from poor countries because these immigrants won't know they are getting fucked in the ass with low pay.
The part I don’t understand is why it’s important to hit the “replacement level”. Wouldn’t it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?
Actually, you're right, and I think that lowered populations are a good thing. World needs quality people, not just quantity. A world filled with a smaller amount of environmentally conscious and responsible people is better than a world filled with a large amount of meat eating, gas guzzler driving jackasses that spend all their time being racist, while overconsuming everything and yelling and shooting at anyone who even suggests that maybe they should cut down on consumption.
That's true but the largest impact is caused by billionaires who fly even-more-gas-guzzling private jets, hunt and/or eat endangered species, buy gold and jewelry made with blood materials from Africa and use their spending power to influence the world negatively in multiple ways for profit.
The economy will crumble if we don't get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I'm not holding out hope...
Yes, but our whole economy, and maybe even society itself is built on the requirement and assumption of growth.
We steal tomorrow to pay for today.
If we stop having enough people to grow, we will collapse under the requirements of our system until a new non-growth economy/society is formed from the ashes.
I don't think it will be possible to have a smooth transition to a non-growth or low-growth society since very few people will willingly sacrifice the amenities we pay with in debt, which is paid for by predicted growth.
When that predicted growth goes negative, collectively, we will not be able to afford the things we want, and that will cause mass chaos and potentially even resource wars.
The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.
But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.
How do you figure. If the workforce becomes by and large robotic, taxing the businesses, based on that, like you would humans, would work well enough. If not, then there needs to be some concession from businesses to pay the same or more as when humans were doing the jobs.
I absolutely hate the inter-generational blame game. Probably because I don't even feel like I belong to any generation as I was born right at the end of 1980, so I'd be a young genXer or something. I don't even know how these generations are decided upon, but in particular I'm sick of hearing everything getting blamed on Millennials all the time, since it really feels like it's mostly a bunch of old rich conservatives doing all the moaning, and is largely the same kind of people as those moaning about bicycle lanes and wind turbines.
I just did a quick search to find a random list of 40 things Millennials are frequently blamed for. Some of the things in the list are absolutely stupid as fuck, but I'm sure we've all seen such articles. I guess it's easier to generate clicks with headlines blaming Millennials for the downfall of Western civilisation instead of maybe writing a thoughtful article on why there are fewer people having kids, that perhaps investigates issues the commenter mentions.
Millennials and Gen-Z are truly the lost generation.
Imagine still living with parents in your late twenties or even early thirties because you simply cannot afford to even rent your own place. Now imagine that work pays like shit and you are busting your ass working long hours to chase an eternal pipe dream of economic prosperity. You can't even seek psychiatric help for your ailing mental health because it's expensive, inaccessible and oversubscribed.
For a man, being in that situation makes you downright undateable so it's not like you can rely on the joint incomes that couples do either.
And we wonder why toxic masculinity is on the rise...
The rich have done a smash & grab on the economy and made everybody poorer as a result of their own greed. It's a dangerous game.
It's not just millennials. I was born 5 years after the end of the Baby Boomers and by the time I was 20 everything was becoming out of reach. Add a energy crisis or two, 40 years of Republican austerity for anyone but themselves, and a few financial crashes We the People ended-up bailing out, and I never got anywhere enough traction to do more than just get by without a mountain of debt. We never outran the entitlement of the Boomer generation.
Good luck Millennials - and I mean it - but the only way out is to get out of the US while you can.
Hasn't the fertility rate in the US been going down from the 1960s? With immigrations covering the shortfall?
Actually looking at the data. It went down significantly in the 60 and 70s. Then picked up in the 80s, 90s and early 2000. Then started dropping again from 2010.
But one thing to note to seem to be that it never went past replacement rate after 1972. 2.1 is considered to the global number for replacement. So for the last 60 years or so immigration has kept the population growing in absolute terms.
Not making a political statement, I find it weird when people club a huge group of people into one bucket and brand them.
I do not like the terms but sticking to the terms here. It looks like the young boomers had a similar number of children to today and the older boomers were already dropping the number of children they were having.
The surface area of just the land alone on Earth is more than enough to house every human alive right now. Its actually more than enough to house every human that ever lived since the dawn of human history on it with room to spare according to expert calculations. The global population didnt even hit 1 billion people until like 1800. Now, if you subtract out all the currently unlivable areas because of nuclear radiation and harsh weather and such, you're still going to have enough land for every human alive right now to live comfortably.
Its just that modern humans hate the idea of living so spread out, and apparently all want to be stacked into the same 10 miles of land. Also, governments charge money for land, they're not giving that away for free.
EDIT: In case you or someone else wants to check exact math, heres the data:
Earth Land Area: 148,326,000 square km (this is actually only 30% of the Earths total surface area, the other 70% is covered by water)
Human population (total since dawn of humanity, estimated): ~110,000,000,000
Human population (current) ~8,000,000,000
My estimations put it at around 15,000 square feet per person ever born, or approximately 200,000 square feet per person alive right now.
Humans need to eat. The land needed for agriculture already covers significant percentage of the habitable land. About half based on our world in data [1]. Yes most of this is due to livestock so this can be significantly reduced but still.
Other species also need space to live. Even if you look at it in s strictly selfish fashion and disregard the right of other species to exist - we are part of the ecosystem so if it dies we die.
The land's not the problem though. Sustainable development is, and larger populations inevitably contribute to global warming, waste etc. The fact that cities only account for a small portion of land doesn't change anything. They will continue to exist and are only manageable if the population is controlled
Maybe it would be better for americans to stop creating even more suburbia and increasing their resource consumption transporting tons of food and water away from city centers. As a bonus, vehicle dependency lowers dramatically.
It's a complex subject that deserves legitimate scientific study. There are known detrimental effects of low fertility rates in a country, but they often take a long time to manifest. However, there are also many examples of horrific consequences of governments trying to affect fertility rate.
For sure. Somehow Nestle still pisses me off more though. Corporations that get too powerful are the real danger to us today in my opinion. But they draw a lot of parallels with the old corrupt communist regimes.
..It's a really super basic entry level concept in understanding demographics and populations, plus economics, human geography, migration trends, society in general, etc. There's nothing dystopian about it. (Arguably, the fact that people instantly think such studies are dystopic is itself dystopic.)
Add comment