U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2020, 07:40 AM
 
1,533 posts, read 725,926 times
Reputation: 2007

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Quote and cite where I said anything even remotely like "only," or that I said anything about the current monkey, or that I said anything about a time frame.

Or go study up on RFC, since it eludes you. Start with the point that you interpreted my comments as meaning something specific that you object to... and which of us that says the most about.
Trump would be proud of you, it’s a page straight out of his playbook. When there’s a statement you no longer want attributed to you just deny it and attack the person pointing it out.

I will acknowledge you did not provide a time frame. I can only imagine that you were under the impression this trend began with the “current monkey” since the article focused on 2017 and 2018, not realizing the trend has been in place for much longer. Once this was pointed out, looks like you decided you no longer wanted to defend your original assertion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2020, 07:53 AM
 
5,956 posts, read 1,749,730 times
Reputation: 10430
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJ99 View Post
No such thing as an infinitely expanding economy on a finite planet.
I don't think anyone would disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HJ99 View Post
And like it or not, soon have to deal with AI automation makes most human jobs superfluous.
Certainly there will be a reallocation of labor from things AI & automation do to other modes of adding value to the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 07:55 AM
 
5,956 posts, read 1,749,730 times
Reputation: 10430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
USCIS adjusts the lottery based on birth-death rates.
I guess you missed it. The discussion was to increase immigration of women of childbearing years rather than relying upon a lottery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 08:11 AM
 
5,956 posts, read 1,749,730 times
Reputation: 10430
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
... As someone who has an educational background and career background in Geographic Information Systems, (GIS), I specialize in economic geography, population demography, and population migrations. One key factor that I have noticed in the US is that the smaller sized metropolitan areas are now experiencing population age structure pyramids similar to a large percentage of rural counties. This is significant because it is strongly indicative that these areas are becoming less economically viable over time- meaning less job growth and a greater outflow of residents instead of inflows. A key demographic tipping point are counties or cities having a greater percentage of the population over age 65 than under the age of 18. Once that has occurred, this does not reverse often or at all.
It's far too early to see in the data, but there could reversal. The thought process goes like this: large companies located in large cities are learning they can operate with most employees working from home. Companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Salesforce and others have said they will keep their employees working from home for quite a while - at least until the end of the year and in some cases permanently. Anecdotal evidence shows 20-somethings and 30-somethings leaving San Francisco so they can live well outside a daily-commute envelope.

There are drivers on both sides:

For the employee, they retain their $250K/year tech salary, but instead of paying $4,000/month for a small apartment with bums defecating on the sidewalks, they can purchase a condo/townhouse/SFR elsewhere and enjoy a better quality of life in a place where they might start a family.

For the employer, they are learning they can cut down on their office space costs. Moreover, the employers will come to learn they can manage employees who are geographically dispersed.

Yes, in-person is better, as it fosters the impromptu hallway conversations sometimes referred to as "management by wandering around," but the pandemic is a catalyst to a different way of working.

I'm retired, but I recall managing a hundred engineers and support staff in several remote locations - but they were clustered in office buildings in various cities around the globe. It takes discipline. But that same discipline just might allow even more dispersed work into those at-risk smaller cities.

Again, it is far too early to show up in data, and and these anecdotes might ultimately found to be outliers rather than a trend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 08:15 AM
 
5,956 posts, read 1,749,730 times
Reputation: 10430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Social security will become a non-issue within 25 years. Whether the US survives as the kind of nation we know it as depends on a sensible immigration policy... which is not codespeke for "only let in 30yo professionals."
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I'll guess when you say "sensible immigration policy" you don't mean a random lottery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
And 'best and brightest' goes considerably beyond 30yos with sh*tty IT degrees.
Would you say a sensible policy would include explicitly including women of child-bearing age?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 08:20 AM
 
5,956 posts, read 1,749,730 times
Reputation: 10430
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
I would be glad to elaborate. TMBG has part of the answer correct, so that's why I have him quoted before I get into detail.

We'll start with the Singles Map. This is 2012 so I set the default slider age to 20-29, which would have covered the core of the Millennial generation (1983-1992 births). You could see that in 2012, there are massive imbalances of single men relative to single women. I think the working definition of "single" in this data set is just not married. We have no idea what the attachment rate is in the data set (people in exclusive, unmarried relationships). It is unlikely that this data set has changed meaningfully since 2012.

Because of the definition of single in the data set, single female Millennials marrying outside their cohort is irrelevant to that specific analysis. I could buy the argument that many single female Millennials will look to Gen X based upon the premise that testosterone levels are declining. Gen X men may have stronger testosterone levels than wussified Millennial men, who have eaten too much soy, too many processed foods, and absorbed too much anti-male (think toxic masculinity), and pro-feminist societal programming. If Gen X men are indeed more masculine, that would not help the competitiveness of Millennial men when competing for Millennial women. More information would be needed before drawing that conclusion.

The real answer is that there are two primary causes contributing to an excess of single males. They are...

1. Male births have outnumbered female births naturally throughout history but there have been too few male deaths before age 30 to compensate for the natural variations. Below are 3 reasons why fewer young men are dying.
  • Fewer Farming and Industrial Accident Deaths
  • A declining crime rate has not killed off enough males
  • No major wars in recent decades to thin the herd of males
[/list]
2. Immigration (legal and illegal)

China and India have had an excess of male births since the 1980s. Though the H1B visa program, China and India are dumping excess males into the United States. This is at best making a small dent in the male surplus problems in those nations, but it is worsening our biological sex ratios. Look at San Jose, California. San Jose is a sausage fest of Chinese and Indian tech workers who are not attracting men.

Immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America (both legal and illegal) tends to skew more male than female.



Denver is known as Menver. It is a really bad mating environment. Metro Denver attracts a lot of mountain exercise bums, who are overwhelming male. Tech workers in Silicon Valley make that a male heavy environment. Midland-Odessa, Texas has a preponderance of oil/gas/energy workers to create a huge male surplus. San Diego has a heavy concentration of military men.

When women have too many options as they often do in modern times, they tend to enter a state of analysis paralysis. With analysis paralysis, women will not commit to extended relationships when someone else better is around the corner, often with just a few swipe and texts exchanges, or a couple of in-person outings. Without extended relationships, fertility declines.

Additionally, many women who find themselves single in their late 20s and beyond are not appealing to men as long term partners based upon their attitudes. Looks are also relevant, but the attitude thing is worse. A lot of these women prioritize career above romantic relationships. Few men want to build a life with a woman who will skip spending time with them to work on a legal brief or a PR campaign on a regular basis. This affects fertility. These men are at best willing to have short term sex with career women, but don't want them around for a long time.



The anecdotes you see in your own social circle are reflective of a poor mating environment in the Millennial cohort. Millennials are getting married later in life than Boomers or Gen X did. There are no evidence yet that fewer Millennials are getting married. To really examine that, you'd want to wait a few years to see % of Millennials getting married at least once by age 45. My hypothesis is the % of Millennial marrying at least once by 45 will be the similar as Boomers and Gen X. Whereas the median Boomer got married at roughly age 23 and the median X'ers got married at 27, the median Millennial is getting married around age 30. Marriages of the course of the lifetime of the marriages are still failing at around the same rate.

The bad mating environment that Millennials are coping with that I have illustrated will have economic impact. There will be fewer working age people in the future and a large % of the population over age 65 and not contributing positively to economic growth.

The post-jobs world will have a lot of consequences.

Great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 08:28 AM
 
5,099 posts, read 2,198,639 times
Reputation: 3026
I think many of us would be fine with dealing with the harsh realities of social security if it meant leveling out the population curve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 09:43 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 495,223 times
Reputation: 3155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher View Post
I think many of us would be fine with dealing with the harsh realities of social security if it meant leveling out the population curve.
So... you'd take about two generations of depressed GNP and (effectively) very high taxation rates to support the aging bubble, on the theory that that would represent some permanent change in US population? In isolation from world population? And with little or none of the "yeast" from immigration and new blood that is indisputably part of the US's historical strength?

I completely agree that reducing Earth's population to a more sustainable figure (5B?) is a worthwhile and necessary goal, but few who advocate it — especially as some primary goal, over all others — neither grasp the cost of doing so nor are willing to pay their share of that cost. That is, it's up to others (who are not financially stable and secure) to make sacrifices, rarely the proponent who somehow gets to keep all that is his. We're nearly always back to a "worth" issue, as runs through this very thread.

The solution is twofold: accept that an accelerated timeline for population reduction is about a century, and that it will take a completely different economic system to achieve it. Oh, and that we have other problems to cope with and solve as well; vague handwaving about a lowered population as a solution won't wash, not until perhaps our young/future grandchildren's era.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 09:46 AM
 
136 posts, read 30,423 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
This is a very troubling economic trend:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-bir...ow-11589947260




The economic consequence 21 years from now in 2041 will be severe. Every credible econometric model of the US economy shows population growth as a principle driver of future economic growth.

In many senses, this decline is associated with the incredibly strong economy we've enjoyed over the past several years - economic opportunity for women has resulted in their personal decisions to work and defer/decline to procreated.

More and more, it is clear the USA needs a policy of encouraging immigration of fertile women who are of childbearing age.
It's not just the US, It's pretty much every developed nation in the world.

It's the reason why Canada has such high immigration, our birth rate has been declining for over 30 years, with a birth rate of 1.5 per woman.

In south Korea it's only 1.05 births per one woman, much worse than here in the US, which is 1.77 births per woman.

I 100% agree with your point though. All developed nations really need to start pushing the idea of better family planning, and encouraging families to have at least 2 children. Or soon our population will decline with our workforce, which is paramount in a healthy, developed nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 09:49 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 495,223 times
Reputation: 3155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I'll guess when you say "sensible immigration policy" you don't mean a random lottery.
I'd rather not get dragged sideways into a contentious and complicated argument — me or the thread — but to me a 'sensible' policy is all about that critical new blood/cultural turnover that has happened a dozen times in US history. To reduce it to ages and degrees and fertility is to miss the point. There should be a hurdle; there should be a gate. What we have now is a xenophobic maze favoring select categories that literally serve the now and not the future. (F'rex, way too many I-9 visas for highly trained worker ants.)

Quote:
Would you say a sensible policy would include explicitly including women of child-bearing age?
Again, too specific and either comes from or is addressing the idea that all immigration is those worker ants, be they field hands or system architects. Immigration should be seen as new blood, pure and simple, that brings both immediate (10 year) benefits and permanent improvement. They will be allowed to bear children, yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top