• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

America's coming demographic disaster

N

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
In the next three decades, there will be more people over 65 than under 18. That is a scary prospect any way you look at it. The fertility rate is at its lowest since tracking of it began a century ago.As examples of various Asian countries show, there are no amount of incentives that the govt can give for people to reproduce more. Just doesn't work that way.

More immigrants are needed. The libertarian position of course is open borders, though I personally don't quite agree with that. I do think a lot more legal immigrants are needed.

But its ironic that the more immigrants are needed, the more the sentiment is against that. Those who oppose non-European immigrants used to be a minor slice of the Republican party but now pretty much seem to control it. Instead of increase, they want to drastically reduce legal immigration, which is quite astonishing. Not to mention myopic. Does anyone actually want a dark Japan like future for America, where people are dressing dogs in baby clothes and putting them in strollers.

America Needs Immigrants Now More Than Ever
From falling birthrates to labor shortages, if you want to make America great again, the economic case for opening borders has never been stronger.

 
image1.png
 
We are a nation of laws and if the cost of that is the elderly or soon to be elderly going without care then so be it.

Owing the libs by making people die neglected and alone.
 
Cool.

Maybe in three decades we might have advanced, robotic caretakers available to take care of every old fuck by then. Because, you know, automation might grow to the point where we have advanced robots doing the caretaker jobs that would've gone to the humans instead.

To be fair, I'll end up being one of those old fucks in three decades, but whateves...
 
Triloby said:
Cool.

Maybe in three decades we might have advanced, robotic caretakers available to take care of every old fuck by then. Because, you know, automation might grow to the point where we have advanced robots doing the caretaker jobs that would've gone to the humans instead.

To be fair, I'll end up being one of those old fucks in three decades, but whateves...
Click to expand...

And who is going to pay for these all wonderful robots? The robots themselves?
 
In three decades (give or take a few!), short of a total breakdown in society or some Dune-like proscription against "machines doing man's labor"--we'd all better be prepared for leisure time. Automation and 3d printing are coming for most jobs eventually. Computer programmers (me)...factory workers...fruit pickers...artisans...musicians (AI can create a pop tune that fools people, maybe not the voice...yet....)... Anyone clinging to the idea of "if you don't work you are worthless" is in for a pretty bad time in the future.
 
Stokely said:
In three decades (give or take a few!), short of a total breakdown in society or some Dune-like proscription against "machines doing man's labor"--we'd all better be prepared for leisure time. Automation and 3d printing are coming for most jobs eventually. Computer programmers (me)...factory workers...fruit pickers...artisans...musicians (AI can create a pop tune that fools people, maybe not the voice...yet....)... Anyone clinging to the idea of "if you don't work you are worthless" is in for a pretty bad time in the future.
Click to expand...

Ok, so who will buy the products these machines create if people don't have money themselves? Some say, govt will give basic income. But where will the govt get money from? It can't work that way
 
Noah Abrams said:
Ok, so who will buy the products these machines create if people don't have money themselves? Some say, govt will give basic income. But where will the govt get money from? It can't work that way
Click to expand...

But you know how it can work? If people work for corporations and the corporations sell to the people and then the corporations reduce what they pay people to increase profits, why then the people will just keep buying what corporations are selling even after everyone in the market are paid subsistence level wages.

Because in Randian Libertopia ever blossoming markets full of profits are created and recreated by gods invisible hand.
 
The developed world as a whole is facing this, not just the US. It wouldn’t be so bad honestly if we were more realistic about things. Medical care needs to be weighed out better, people shouldn’t be retiring just because they hit a certain birthday, multigenerational households should be encouraged, etc.

It’s not an insurmountable problem, but it will take some rethinking.
 
Paratus said:
But you know how it can work? If people work for corporations and the corporations sell to the people and then the corporations reduce what they pay people to increase profits, why then the people will just keep buying what corporations are selling even after everyone in the market are paid subsistence level wages.

Because in Randian Libertopia ever blossoming markets full of profits are created and recreated by gods invisible hand.
Click to expand...

I think you are a little mistaken. Govts with a gazillion regulations by definition favor big corporations, not average people. And both the Dem and Repub party have created and maintained and keep inflating this mammoth govt - because the politicians are part of the machine as well. Anyhow this is a digression.
 
Last edited:
Noah Abrams said:
In the next three decades, there will be more people over 65 than under 18. That is a scary prospect any way you look at it. The fertility rate is at its lowest since tracking of it began a century ago.As examples of various Asian countries show, there are no amount of incentives that the govt can give for people to reproduce more. Just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

[source?].
I distinctly remember reading that parental leave and subsidized child care has been found to incentivize people to have children? The former weakly, the latter more so. But can you point to research that "no incentives" work?
 
obidamnkenobi said:
[source?].
I distinctly remember reading that parental leave and subsidized child care has been found to incentivize people to have children? The former weakly, the latter more so. But can you point to research that "no incentives" work?
Click to expand...

Countries like Japan and Singapore have provided all sorts of incentives, to no avail. Europe has more social benefits than America - yet people are reproducing less and less. It also becomes a philosophical question. People these days have different mindsets compared to ancestors.
 
Noah Abrams said:
That seems like such a pessimistic viewpoint, and I am not saying that as a judgement on you personally at all.
Click to expand...

Why do we need more people? Is there some goal to reach to win? Better to maintain a number that doesnt put a strain on resources then to breed like rabbits just cause?
 
obidamnkenobi said:
[source?].
I distinctly remember reading that parental leave and subsidized child care has been found to incentivize people to have children? The former weakly, the latter more so. But can you point to research that "no incentives" work?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the idea that no incentives can work sounds like bullshit to me. One of the single largest impediments to a couple having kids these days is the cost of child care, which as time goes on will only increase relative to the price of other things due to Baumol's Cost Disease. (unless we invent child care robots!) The idea that lowering the cost of having kids wouldn't affect the number of kids had is...well...wrong, and should be obviously wrong from an econ 101 perspective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000017/

The results show that increased expenditure on family policy programs that help women to combine family and employment— and thus reduce the opportunity cost of children—generates positive fertility responses.
Click to expand...

https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2009-025.pdf

In particular, we show that increasing child care subsidies conditional on employment increases labor supply of all women as well as fertility of the childless and highly educated women.
Click to expand...
 
UglyCasanova said:
The developed world as a whole is facing this, not just the US. It wouldn’t be so bad honestly if we were more realistic about things. Medical care needs to be weighed out better, people shouldn’t be retiring just because they hit a certain birthday, multigenerational households should be encouraged, etc.

It’s not an insurmountable problem, but it will take some rethinking.
Click to expand...

This is happening more now, and being discussed in the public domain more too. On the whole, the whole American individualism thing is quite a barrier against it. It is not easy for us to make compromises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top