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.
Let me tell you what. Immigration is not going to solve America's population growth problems. Yes America is going to continue to receive immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Africa for the next 25 years, however when immigrants become Americans after the 1st generation. Plenty end up just like regular Americans and end up having at most two kids. Especially educated immigrants like Africans and Asians who are far more educated than native Black and native White Americans and often at times make more money than both groups will also end up having 2 kids at most. Even me a 1st generation American has yet to reproduce. My current GF who is an academic also only wants two kids. If anything, you guys should check out and read Peter Zeihan on Americas growth strategy for the next 25 years. Things will be good for America in the next couple of decades despite the current hysteria by leftist intersectional and conservatives.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
So many liberal talking points are dead?
(1) Yang and some other democrats are wrong when they claim that automation is about to put millions out of work unlike any other moment in history to the point where we need Universal Basic Income.
(2) The New York Times and other liberals have claimed that an increase in population is damaging to the environment as it constrains resources, deforests, etc...
Quote:
Universal Basic Income
Not because of automation, Yang planned that argument wrong. But for the expense in raising children.
Many countries are providing financial incentives, to entice their young people to have children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristramShandy
Population isn't going down worldwide or here in the United States yet - - so, yes, the environment is being damaged. How anyone could argue otherwise is pretty astounding.
Let me tell you what. Immigration is not going to solve America's population growth problems. Yes America is going to continue to receive immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Africa for the next 25 years, however when immigrants become Americans after the 1st generation. Plenty end up just like regular Americans and end up having at most two kids. Especially educated immigrants like Africans and Asians who are far more educated than native Black and native White Americans and often at times make more money than both groups will also end up having 2 kids at most. Even me a 1st generation American has yet to reproduce. My current GF who is an academic also only wants two kids. If anything, you guys should check out and read Peter Zeihan on Americas growth strategy for the next 25 years. Things will be good for America in the next couple of decades despite the current hysteria by leftist intersectional and conservatives.
Quote:
Immigration is not going to solve America's population growth problems.
You maybe right. Stats indicate that it is a short term fix for a long term problem. (btw: I don't see it as a problem, but poetic justice, just so you know)
Quote:
Things will be good for America in the next couple of decades despite the current hysteria by leftist intersectional and conservatives.
"For American policymakers, fertility is a sort of good news-bad news story. The good news is that the U.S. total fertility rate remains near the highest in the developed world. The bad news is that the good news may be fading fast. The level of fertility is positive, but its rate of change is negative. No developed country, in fact, has experienced such a steady fertility decline since 2008.
<snip>
So, as the fertility rate continues to tick downward, American lawmakers will probably take their time in confronting the big question so many other developed nations are already struggling with: Why are young people having fewer children, and what do we want to do about it?"
Fertility usually starts falling right before a recession hits, which economists have theorized might cause an impending sense of economic insecurity among families that prompts them to put off the financial burden of having kids. Arizona's large immigrant population, which was largely employed in recession-prone economic sectors and had higher-than-average birth rates before the recession, magnified that effect.
But something else was going on in Arizona that was different from other heavily Hispanic states, like California and Texas. In 2007, the legislature required employers to verify their workers were in the country legally using the federally run E-Verify system. Employers who use E-Verify submit their employees' personal information online, where it's then checked against information in databases at the Social Security Administration and US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The state cracked down even harder in 2011, when it passed S.B. 1070, allowing police to ask for proof of citizenship during stops for minor infractions. According to one study by economists Mark Hoekstra of Texas A&M University and Sandra Orozco-Aleman of Mississippi State University, S.B. 1070 alone reduced the flow of undocumented immigrants by more than 30%.
By 2017, Arizona's Hispanic total fertility rate was down to less than 2 births per woman.
PS: people = consumers; less consumers ... less sales ... less sales ... less state tax to collect
There is the constant drumbeat of a college education being so important, so why would we import illiterate peasants?
What has this to do with what I said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
But it’s her body right? Isn’t that the point of what us pro-choicers say? If it is her body and her choice, shouldn’t she be the one to protect her body?
All I’m saying is that the man doesn’t have a choice over whether the woman has the baby or not, so why is he held responsible for her decision. Personally, I couldn’t live with knowing that I had a child that I wasn’t taking care of, but that whole line of thinking seems irrational to me.
Well, I mean, if he "willingly engaged in sex" then he was cool with taking the risk of making a woman pregnant and having to pay child support, right?
If you couldn't live with knowing you had a child you weren't taking care of, then make sure one isn't produced.
Many countries are providing financial incentives, to entice their young people to have children.
I've heard other liberals argue for Universal Basic Income based on automation supposedly in a decade or two changing society forever as it eliminates jobs permanently in a way that has never happened before.
I've also seen liberals including the NY Times argue that an increase in population damages our environment with deforestation, more energy used, strains resources, etc...
So I just find it odd that I hear some liberals say that we need UBI as low-skill jobs will be eliminated soon, population increase destroys a frail environment and then in the next breath say we need more low skill immigrants.
Many countries are providing financial incentives, to entice their young people to have children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
I've heard other liberals argue for Universal Basic Income based on automation supposedly in a decade or two changing society forever as it eliminates jobs permanently in a way that has never happened before.
I've also seen liberals including the NY Times argue that an increase in population damages our environment with deforestation, more energy used, strains resources, etc...
So I just find it odd that I hear some liberals say that we need UBI as low-skill jobs will be eliminated soon, population increase destroys a frail environment and then in the next breath say we need more low skill immigrants.
Seems like cognitive dissonance.
Businesses and manufacturing businesses have always been working towards automation so as to raise efficiency levels and decrease costs. Man created wheel and moved forward.
Reminds me of when maw bell had phone operators. Dial 0 and a human being would say, 'this is the phone operator, how may I help you'. There was a big ta do when all the phone operators were laid off, due to their job becoming automated. Many went on to be retrained for something else ...
Some of them may have decided to milk cows for a living, but I doubt it. There will always be a need in the workforce for, low skilled workers. We may not need as many, as their are machines that replaced the hand in the milking of the cow, but one still needs to hook up the machines to the cows. And while one or two or three are performing that task another may have a different task related to farm production, none of which would require one to write code or have a technical degree, as many tasks are OJT. However, I believe their are farm owners that would prefer experienced help; less for them to worry with.
Agriculture is the one hardest hit when migrant labor declines. Funny, there are jobs that Americans will not do. Fishing Industry is another, because there is not that many people willing to wade up to the butts in water and wear fish guts all day.
We also talk about immigrants as if they haven't a brain. And that's just dumb. We call them immigrants, because doing so negates the fact that they are people, fully capable of doing anything any one else is able to do. Some of them have even taken us into this age in technology that without them, we'd be farther behind than other developed countries.
So look at the over all population of 'people' and low skill opportunities, in which the native born population has chosen not to pursue, but will be filled many times by the migrant of people. Where as skills may be needed, migrant people can be retrained, as well, to take on additional and different opportunities.
Some "people" will fall through the cracks ...
Advantages and disadvantages of automation
"A main disadvantage often associated with automation, worker displacement, has been discussed above. Despite the social benefits that might result from retraining displaced workers for other jobs, in almost all cases the worker whose job has been taken over by a machine undergoes a period of emotional stress. In addition to displacement from work, the worker may be displaced geographically. In order to find other work, an individual may have to relocate, which is another source of stress."
A UBI would keep the market place flowing with (cash flow) people able to continue to participate as the masses go through the process.
Quote:
increase in population damages our environment
Damages to our environment are caused by people who do not care; the effects on our environment are caused by people who pollute. One can start with the invention of the Atom bomb and the release of radiation into the atmosphere, where as the 'government' didn't care about the consequences they just wanted results. And then go on from there with Industries that blow smoke stacks of crap in the air, again, not caring about the consequences, they just want results.
But you're arguing the liberal's stance on these topics and I'm not sure I can help you there, because what I see are people and I see a situation; a situation that would not have happened if people were different.
Even though I understand the argument for UBI and the need for a country to maintain a certain populace so as to continue to grow, there has occurred to me a different solution.
Reduce the labor force in the government (largest employer in the u.s.) and grow the private sectors production rate, which would reduce the amount of taxes needed to make payroll and the free market (supply and demand) would take care of itself. No additional babies needed ... it would also make the anti-immigrant people happy, as well. Just a thought ...
You do know that "the developed world" and "the whole world" aren't one in the same, right? And you know that what happens in the undeveloped world affects the developed world, right?
Western youth culture discourages marriage, family and traditionalism. Instead of looking at the culture we are raising our kids in, just bring in ever more foreigners or more government spending. That makes a lot of sense.
Japan is a good example of a culture of infantilization. They have to pay people to hug them, and some men live in their bedrooms and never leave. What could be making a man feel fine about living in his room or parents basement, never having a relationship much less a family of his own.
Well, Japanese culture emphasizes marriage, family and traditionalism. And yet, the birth rate is dropping, the population is ageing - and many young people are not going along with the traditional ways.
The shut-ins (hikkikomori) you describe isn't due to infatilization - too simplistic a label. Origins are fairly complex, really.
You do know that "the developed world" and "the whole world" aren't one in the same, right? And you know that what happens in the undeveloped world affects the developed world, right?
Yes, I do and you do know how averages work in math, yes? Just asking as a lead in not being snarky ...
World Data ... and you can read all of this if you like, I'm just going to pull two stats from their report.
"Globally, the fertility rate has fallen to 2.5 children per woman and low fertility rates are the norm in most parts of the world: The huge majority of the world population – 80% – now live in countries with a fertility rate below 3 children per woman.3 On the other end of the spectrum there are a few countries – home to around 10% of the world population – where women on average have still more than 5 children."
^^^^
Like you said, but on the average 2.5 global per woman
"The population of a society does not increase when every woman is replaced on average by two children."
What is the fertility rate for the u.s.? I'll give you a hint. It is less than 2.
And that is how they say is that ... any questions?
Also, what is happening in the undeveloped world is they need a place to go. What is happening in the developed world is, but they can't come here.
I've been watching this trend for (10 years) a while now and I'm almost giddy with laughter, because you know what happens when people cut their nose of to spite their face --- it never ends well for 'em. Compassion, the world needs some. If we can't find it, then the Governments can reap the not so nice benefits.
Who’s going to vote for Democrats if we do that?
There are plenty of mostly-white states were democrats do quite well.
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin are all heavily white states, and they have been friendly to democrats in recent decades, or longer.
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.
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.
