America In 2042: New Projections

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: Socio

Quit with the weak spin BS you are embarassing yourself!

I am essentially arguing that Hispanic immigrants and their offspring are and always will be underachievers who are going to ruin the country, for no other reason than that they are as a whole underachievers. As such are not taking advantage of higher education or work opportunities in the same way that Asians or White people do.

Good god, you cannot possibly be serious.

But whatever, I need to get back to underachieving and destroying the country.

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: Socio

Quit with the weak spin BS you are embarassing yourself!

I am essentially arguing that Hispanic immigrants and their offspring are and always will be underachievers who are going to ruin the country, for no other reason than that they are as a whole underachievers. As such are not taking advantage of higher education or work opportunities in the same way that Asians or White people do.

Good god, you cannot possibly be serious.

But whatever, I need to get back to underachieving and destroying the country.

Same here....God I've never seen someone who's this ignorant. I emigrated from central america and will be graduating with a BS. But then again, he thinks I am destroying this country.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Nice ad hominem attack. I have two advanced degrees, including a professional degree from a top ten school.

Perhaps you can put forth a convincing refutation of Malthus? According to your theory, is it impossible to have too many people for a given amount of land and resources? According to your theory, given a certain level of technology, would the prices for resources increase or decrease with a higher population density? In other words, all things being equal, would the price for resources be higher with a higher population density?

It's common sense for the most part; we haven't seen anywhere near a strain on total available land, and despite strains on our resources we continue to be able to maintain increases in standards of living and education across the board versus, say, 15 years ago. So there's that reality, irrefutable at that.

Secondly, for you to stipulate "all things being equal" when quite clearly technology, knowledge, and best practices are always improving year-to-year, simply shows that you don't realize what utter nonsense it is to think the U.S. can't keep up with the current population growth when it has proven otherwise for 200+ years. Until there are definitive signs the U.S. cannot keep up with said growth (as in a real and significant negative trend in GDP growth, standards of living, wages, etc. over a significant period of time), your unprovable BS Malthusian theories will continue to be just that; bullshit.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

It's common sense for the most part; we haven't seen anywhere near a strain on total available land, and despite strains on our resources we continue to be able to maintain increases in standards of living and education across the board versus, say, 15 years ago. So there's that reality, irrefutable at that.

Secondly, for you to stipulate "all things being equal" when quite clearly technology, knowledge, and best practices are always improving year-to-year, simply shows that you don't realize what utter nonsense it is to think the U.S. can't keep up with the current population growth when it has proven otherwise for 200+ years. Until there are definitive signs the U.S. cannot keep up with said growth (as in a real and significant negative trend in GDP growth, standards of living, wages, etc. over a significant period of time), your unprovable BS Malthusian theories will continue to be just that; bullshit.

I stipulated "all things being equal" because the point is that the cost of natural resources and land would be less expensive with a lower population density. It's quite possible that costd could decrease as population increases as a result of technological advance, however, the point remains that even given that technological advance, the costs would be even lower with a lower population.

(In this context were talking about populations on the order of hundreds of millions where the economic benefit of having a division of labor could not be further improved as opposed to a situation where the nation only had a population of 1 million.)

For evidence of the strain on resources that comes with an increasing population, I refer you to the water shortages in the West and in Georgia, increasing food prices, and increasing prices for fossil fuels (how the hell could you miss that one?). Presumably, the amount of pollution and the strain on the nation's environment have also increased, or at least the strain is greater than it would be if we had a lower population.

I question your assertion that Americans' overall standard of living has been increasing and to the extent that technological advance has improved it, as I said earlier, it would be even better with a lower population and lower resource costs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ElFenix
too many people

148 million too many.

Yeah, you're right...the exact way the US population is right now is the only possible way this country can work, and boy aren't we lucky that we're living at the pinnacle of our civilization :roll:

Seriously, when did we turn into such a xenophobic country? Were your ancestors native Americans?

Well I think it is a natural feeling to distrust people who dont look like yourself. So to answer your question we have always been a xenophobic country. Even when people came from Europe, people disliked the Irish and Italians and other southern european's because they were prodominantly catholic and not from Northern Europe and of protestant faith.

 

[Genx87]

I have been thinking about this topic the last few days and have to admit there is part of me that is worried. My biggest fear is the values people south of the border bring to the table may not be the same I hold today and in 50 years our govt looks much different and bigger than it is today.

That said at the same time I realize we as a nation have gone through this before with the massive immigration from Europe 100 years ago. Did our country shit the bed then? No, so why would it shit the bed with the new immigrants?

The biggest key in all of this is making sure they become integrated. 2nd and 3rd generation latino's shouldnt be any different than 2nd and 3rd generation europeans if done correctly. They should have similar standards of living and educational levels. And quite frankly I think most data is showing Latino's are achieving quite well all things considered. One thing that points to a favorable future is Latino's have a very high incident of marriage and a strong family. In this country a strong family structure and education level are what sets people apart. No education or a broken home spells disaster.

I think we as a nation will be fine in 2050. If everything works out like it should we will be very strong with another 140 million people to add to our economic output.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Socio
The problem is this is not just a demographic change; it will completely change not only the US as we know it but have dire repercussions for the entire world.
By in large Hispanic off spring are only bettering the parent by a slight margin, their high school drops out rates are high and the percentage that do graduate and continue on to college is very small, and of that, the percentage that actually graduate with a degree are even smaller.

Thus as the Hispanic population increases so does the lower class poor, the middle class is not being replaced and the rich are getting richer. Without a large strong middle class the US cannot afford a massive majority population of lower class poor, it will collapse, that is an absolute inevitability. Once that happens it will re-emerge as something like a much worse Mexico 20 years ago only with no place for anyone to immigrate to for a better life. There will be wide spread famine and disease because we will not be able to produce enough or afford to buy enough food to support the population, we will not have enough doctors, or be able to afford medical facilities, medicine to treat such a large number poor.

There will be no one like the US to send us aid either; This US collapse will have catastrophic domino affects on the EU and China, in all likelihood causing similar collapses, then in turn the world economy will collapse. Wars will rage and we will be in a permanent global Dark Age playing survival of the fittest destroying the entire planet in the process.

Bwuahahahahaha....Bwuahahahahaha.... You never cease to dissapoint..Bwuahahahaha :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Though it's complete paranoind bullshit I almost kind of hope this happens as I will be dead and gone and you'll be stuck living in your own personal hell.:thumbsup:

Socio's post may be over the top... but in 2042 I bet many U.S. cities will have slums that rival many third world nations.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Socio
The problem is this is not just a demographic change; it will completely change not only the US as we know it but have dire repercussions for the entire world.
By in large Hispanic off spring are only bettering the parent by a slight margin, their high school drops out rates are high and the percentage that do graduate and continue on to college is very small, and of that, the percentage that actually graduate with a degree are even smaller.

Thus as the Hispanic population increases so does the lower class poor, the middle class is not being replaced and the rich are getting richer. Without a large strong middle class the US cannot afford a massive majority population of lower class poor, it will collapse, that is an absolute inevitability. Once that happens it will re-emerge as something like a much worse Mexico 20 years ago only with no place for anyone to immigrate to for a better life. There will be wide spread famine and disease because we will not be able to produce enough or afford to buy enough food to support the population, we will not have enough doctors, or be able to afford medical facilities, medicine to treat such a large number poor.

There will be no one like the US to send us aid either; This US collapse will have catastrophic domino affects on the EU and China, in all likelihood causing similar collapses, then in turn the world economy will collapse. Wars will rage and we will be in a permanent global Dark Age playing survival of the fittest destroying the entire planet in the process.

Bwuahahahahaha....Bwuahahahahaha.... You never cease to dissapoint..Bwuahahahaha :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Though it's complete paranoind bullshit I almost kind of hope this happens as I will be dead and gone and you'll be stuck living in your own personal hell.:thumbsup:

Socio's post may be over the top... but in 2042 I bet many U.S. cities will have slums that rival many third world nations.

Sure we will. The ratio will scale with growth. More poor downtrodden souls.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
It's a SALAD, not a melting pot. Because the amount of immigration is so high, many of the immigrants don't assimilate

perhaps some do not, but all their kids do. As to assimilation, if they speak basic english that's all the assimilation I require of anyone. Most immigrants speak passable english in their home countries anyway, and are innundated with american tv/radio. For legal immigrants, english is already a requirement.

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
46% is still the majority.

no, it's a plurality, hence the article

 

[CanOWorms]

It's interesting that many European politicians are calling for mass deportations, genocides, etc. because their minority populations are growing to 5-10% of the population.

Hopefully the US will turn more and more away from its bizarre obsession with Europe when more people of non-European descent become Americans. It's easier to go to war (to fight the Europeans in their future ethnic cleansing campaign) when you don't have as strong of an attachment. These demographics in the US are good for the world's future.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting that many European politicians are calling for mass deportations, genocides, etc. because their minority populations are growing to 5-10% of the population.

Hopefully the US will turn more and more away from its bizarre obsession with Europe when more people of non-European descent become Americans. It's easier to go to war (to fight the Europeans in their future ethnic cleansing campaign) when you don't have as strong of an attachment. These demographics in the US are good for the world's future.

Link??? What European politicians/countries are calling for or advocating genocide?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting that many European politicians are calling for mass deportations, genocides, etc. because their minority populations are growing to 5-10% of the population.

Hopefully the US will turn more and more away from its bizarre obsession with Europe when more people of non-European descent become Americans. It's easier to go to war (to fight the Europeans in their future ethnic cleansing campaign) when you don't have as strong of an attachment. These demographics in the US are good for the world's future.

Link??? What European politicians/countries are calling for or advocating genocide?

I see you are unfamiliar with CanOWorms. Let me explain his worldview. Europe = fascist/nazi/psychotic/extremist/genocidal/maniacal/unwashed/etc

I think he hates Canadians too.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have been thinking about this topic the last few days and have to admit there is part of me that is worried. My biggest fear is the values people south of the border bring to the table may not be the same I hold today and in 50 years our govt looks much different and bigger than it is today.

That said at the same time I realize we as a nation have gone through this before with the massive immigration from Europe 100 years ago. Did our country shit the bed then? No, so why would it shit the bed with the new immigrants?

Because we have a tremendous amount of social programs which many immigrants will use, possibly seriously damaging the economy. Back in the 19th century, you either made it on your own or you died.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting that many European politicians are calling for mass deportations, genocides, etc. because their minority populations are growing to 5-10% of the population.

Hopefully the US will turn more and more away from its bizarre obsession with Europe when more people of non-European descent become Americans. It's easier to go to war (to fight the Europeans in their future ethnic cleansing campaign) when you don't have as strong of an attachment. These demographics in the US are good for the world's future.

Link??? What European politicians/countries are calling for or advocating genocide?

I see you are unfamiliar with CanOWorms. Let me explain his worldview. Europe = fascist/nazi/psychotic/extremist/genocidal/maniacal/unwashed/etc

I think he hates Canadians too.

Ya, he hates us Canucks too. That's because every morning we wake up, call the Queen, and get our daily task list.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I stipulated "all things being equal" because the point is that the cost of natural resources and land would be less expensive with a lower population density.

Except this doesn't bear itself out in reality. Reality as in numbers; standards of living/quality of life, economic health (GDP per capita), etc.

It's quite possible that costd could decrease as population increases as a result of technological advance, however, the point remains that even given that technological advance, the costs would be even lower with a lower population.

No, that is not a fact. Immigration to the U.S. has been occurring since the birth of the nation, and boomed in the 20th century, the century where we became the world's superpower for the first time. Your notion that decreasing the population size would lower "costs" is without numerical merit; this hasn't been proven anywhere except in theory. In international economics you'll get all sorts of explanations of how a flood of labor will decrease wages...if you simply ignore everything else. That's about the only area your nonsense might make any sense, but certainly not in practical reality.

(In this context were talking about populations on the order of hundreds of millions where the economic benefit of having a division of labor could not be further improved as opposed to a situation where the nation only had a population of 1 million.)

And again, you will not be able to cite a peer-reviewed paper anywhere on this planet that shows that there are diminishing returns for increasing population size that also doesn?t give multiple conditions to such a stipulation, such as:

1) While increasing population size might have some correlation to worsening standards of living temporarily (in the short run), over the long run the benefits are numerically obvious financially per capita.
2) Reducing population size is simply impractical and mostly ludicrous, as that would mean a forced reduction (and therefore, new legislation) making U.S. citizens give birth at a lower rate than the 2.0 replacement rate.

#2 applies to you, someone ardent in their belief that increasing population size is disadvantageous to the point that ?the economic benefit of having a division of labor could not be further improved?. Again, ludicrous to its core, there is no evidence that the U.S. population would be better off at closer to 1M people than 300M, at least not in practical reality. One need look no further than one of various European countries (Italy in particular), whose replacement rate has dropped to 1.3 children per couple, their population decreasing at a rapid rate yet their economic well being simultaneously dropping along with it.

For evidence of the strain on resources that comes with an increasing population, I refer you to the water shortages in the West and in Georgia, increasing food prices, and increasing prices for fossil fuels (how the hell could you miss that one?).

Yeah, how the hell could I miss a resource like oil that has been ?running out? for 3+ decades now. Fact of the matter is we don?t know how much of it is left, and the water shortages you speak of in California still haven?t come to a point of crisis. We always seem to find a way to solve these issues because technologically we can handle said dilemmas. That?s a direct result of a large, prosperous population raised under U.S. culture. And increasing food prices mean nothing, that?s nothing but a temporary hike.

Presumably, the amount of pollution and the strain on the nation's environment have also increased, or at least the strain is greater than it would be if we had a lower population.

No, there is zero correlation between our population growth and increasing air pollution. For example, here in California, the number of PM (particulate matter) warnings that reached a certain critical level numbered 16 in the 1970?s, 2 in the 1980?s, and zero in the 1990?s and 00?s, despite massive population growth in this state. Why? Simple answer; enhancements to air cleaning technologies, and specifically improvements in exhaust output via the catalytic converter in automobile engines.

I question your assertion that Americans' overall standard of living has been increasing and to the extent that technological advance has improved it,

That's because fundamentally, you do not have the prerequisite knowledge to fully grasp why.

as I said earlier, it would be even better with a lower population and lower resource costs.

Not in reality, something you continually fail to grasp.

 

[Genx87]

^
|
|

I agree with Evan about population increases contributing to a higher standard of living. When was the last time a civilization prospered with a shrinking population?