[quote='Athlone McGinnis' pid='362277' dateline='1359945320']
Sub-replacement fertility causes problems in the longterm. I'll be explaining this to Lemmo in a bit.[quote]
Pure hypothesis. Severely low replacement levels are likely to cause problems in the future. But no country has experienced birth rates at these levels before so I think you state your case too definitively. I was arguing that while there are reasons to be concerned about low birth rates, the harms experienced as a result of mass immigration and (to a lesser extent) overpopulation are known, severe and likely would be worse than the economic pain required to adjust to a declining population. Japan has 120 million people in an area the size of California, is wealthy and has a stable, healthy society. They should by all means seek to increase their birth rate. But I'm not convinced that the hypothetical problems you outline, which you admit may not be experienced for decades, are so severe as to require (or would in any case be ameliorated by) cramming millions of the poorest and least educated Asians into Japan. By this logic, Europe should be clamoring for America to empty its slums and trailer parks into it.
[quote] I don't agree, Japan is in a much more precarious position than the majority of Western nations, the USA included. Those few western nations that manage to keep their fertility at or above replacement level are going to be in a much stronger position later this century than those who fail to do so. [quote]
A bald assertion based on a prediction of the distant future. You are assuming that these immigrants, who have been shown to currently be a net economic cost, to discourage innovation, to promote low productivity, to increase economic inequality and to be less educated than the natives are somehow going to be willing and able to pay for these entitlements. More realistically, these countries will simply become poorer and entitlement reforms will still be required. And this completely ignores non-economic costs of large scale immigration. I think my prediction that countries like Japan can better cope through a combination of pro-child policies, money printing and entitlement reforms is at least as realistic.
[quote] Hate them or love them, they're not wrong to point out the importance of growth and immigration to the sustainability to our societies.
There is a reason why so many low-fertility western nations are courting immigrants and allowing hundreds of thousands of them through the door annually.
They aren't doing it because they love diversity and want to build glorious rainbow nations. They're doing it because they understand the fact that sub-replacement fertility will bite them very badly, and they want to mitigate its consequences as best they can.[quote]
This doesn't pass the laugh test. Yes, I'm sure all these wise politicians are favoring immigration because they are planning for economic conditions decades in the future. It couldn't be a desire for cheap labor and easy votes...
And I'm not sure what definition of sustainability you are using that would argue in favor of mass immigration. Certainly not one including environmental, cultural or political sustainability.
Bottom line - every country will be poorer as it ages in the absence of some new productivity revolution so entitlement reform will be required. This is unavoidable as larger percentages of populations cease to produce. Countries that try to address this through mass immigration are just replacing unproductive seniors with low productivity unskilled workers and their unproductive dependents and adding ethnic/generational/economic conflict and most likely political paralysis to their other problems.
Sub-replacement fertility causes problems in the longterm. I'll be explaining this to Lemmo in a bit.[quote]
Pure hypothesis. Severely low replacement levels are likely to cause problems in the future. But no country has experienced birth rates at these levels before so I think you state your case too definitively. I was arguing that while there are reasons to be concerned about low birth rates, the harms experienced as a result of mass immigration and (to a lesser extent) overpopulation are known, severe and likely would be worse than the economic pain required to adjust to a declining population. Japan has 120 million people in an area the size of California, is wealthy and has a stable, healthy society. They should by all means seek to increase their birth rate. But I'm not convinced that the hypothetical problems you outline, which you admit may not be experienced for decades, are so severe as to require (or would in any case be ameliorated by) cramming millions of the poorest and least educated Asians into Japan. By this logic, Europe should be clamoring for America to empty its slums and trailer parks into it.
[quote] I don't agree, Japan is in a much more precarious position than the majority of Western nations, the USA included. Those few western nations that manage to keep their fertility at or above replacement level are going to be in a much stronger position later this century than those who fail to do so. [quote]
A bald assertion based on a prediction of the distant future. You are assuming that these immigrants, who have been shown to currently be a net economic cost, to discourage innovation, to promote low productivity, to increase economic inequality and to be less educated than the natives are somehow going to be willing and able to pay for these entitlements. More realistically, these countries will simply become poorer and entitlement reforms will still be required. And this completely ignores non-economic costs of large scale immigration. I think my prediction that countries like Japan can better cope through a combination of pro-child policies, money printing and entitlement reforms is at least as realistic.
[quote] Hate them or love them, they're not wrong to point out the importance of growth and immigration to the sustainability to our societies.
There is a reason why so many low-fertility western nations are courting immigrants and allowing hundreds of thousands of them through the door annually.
They aren't doing it because they love diversity and want to build glorious rainbow nations. They're doing it because they understand the fact that sub-replacement fertility will bite them very badly, and they want to mitigate its consequences as best they can.[quote]
This doesn't pass the laugh test. Yes, I'm sure all these wise politicians are favoring immigration because they are planning for economic conditions decades in the future. It couldn't be a desire for cheap labor and easy votes...
And I'm not sure what definition of sustainability you are using that would argue in favor of mass immigration. Certainly not one including environmental, cultural or political sustainability.
Bottom line - every country will be poorer as it ages in the absence of some new productivity revolution so entitlement reform will be required. This is unavoidable as larger percentages of populations cease to produce. Countries that try to address this through mass immigration are just replacing unproductive seniors with low productivity unskilled workers and their unproductive dependents and adding ethnic/generational/economic conflict and most likely political paralysis to their other problems.