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.
Are we talking about selective immigration or flooding the nation with low education/low skilled, high birthrate immigrants?
The devil's in the details.
You literally posted our Immigration policy for 100 years in the US. Low skill workers are the immigrants we took in mass.
I am certain if the US took in 100,000's of high skilled white collar workers in mass, people would be just as upset as taking in low skill workers. Perhaps more, those degrees are not cheap and student loan companies track you to your death bed. They won't take, it's the high skill immigrants fault, as an excuse.
Immigration has historically helped economies in the USA, even if the Trump fanboys and girls don't like it.
That's a swell Straw Man you've created.
Conservatives do not oppose immigration. They only oppose illegal immigration.
People just like you think the US should do what no State on this Earth does and that is have unguarded borders with unrestricted unaccountable immigration.
Now a very interesting economic impact assessment article showing why if the USA wants to continue to lead, they need, I mean, really, really need, immigration, and a lot more of it.
Your article by a non-starter proves only that your non-starter is witless.
By comparison, the worker-to-senior ratio in the U.S. will also decrease, but more slowly, from 3.5 in 2020 to 2.1 by 2070. By 2055, the U.S. will have more workers per retiree than even Brazil and China.
Anyone catch it?
It isn't that clever.
Here it is: "the worker-to-senior ratio"
That is not the same thing as the worker to Social Security beneficiary ratio which is currently 2.8 according to the Social Security Administration who are far more authoritative on the subject than some non-starter wannabe "journalist."
In the future, that ratio will always fall between 2.3:1 to 2.0:1 and more or less remain so for the next 500 years.
The beauty of that is you only have to raise the FICA tax rate one more time to where it should have always been, and that is 8.2%-8.4% each for employer and employee to fund Social Security for the next 500 years. Granted the "surplus" might only be $100 Billion to $500 Billion annually, but then you really don't need and wouldn't want a $1+ TRILLION surplus over that time.
Large populations are necessary for economies to move from the 0/1st Level to the 2nd Level, but not from the 2nd Level to the Levels beyond that.
Why? Because economic expansion requires massive services: accounting, auditing, financing, investing, banking, insurance, legal, engineering, architectural, design, management, administration and sorry if I left anyone out but I'm tired of typing.
You cannot have those services if your population only has a 4th-6th Grade education. People need more education and advanced education.
Being educated means delaying marriage and delaying marriage means your birth-rate declines naturally.
If you do doubt, look at the precipitous drop between 1940 and 1960 long before the advent of birth-control, which didn't really enter the population widespread until the 1970s, because no one could afford it prior to that except Blue Blood and Upper Crust women. The price of birth-control was beyond the reach of your typical Middle Class, Lower Middle Class, Lower Class and Working Class households.
As technology is enhanced and new technology is developed through this Century, you'll be able to produce more, with less labor.
So, why would you need more people?
Well, you wouldn't, and no one would claim otherwise unless they were a non-starter wannabe "journalist" with an agenda.
Except for the original inhabitants (The native peoples) we are all immigrants or descended from immigrants.
So you think that the Amerindians sprouted up out of the ground like corn? They didn't migrate here also? Original (if they were) does not equate to "native". What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand anyway? In this modern day and age we don't need immigrants like we did a hundred or so years ago. There are far more important things than the economy. I'm for a small population to fit a smaller economy. Much more healthier for everyone.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 22 days ago)
27,632 posts, read 16,118,635 times
Reputation: 19028
The west was encouraged not to have offspring, or have few, because "overpopulation"
Meanwhile irresponsible 3rd world low IQ populations exploded and we're supposed to take them cause "we need em"?
Analyze this~*******er
The west was encouraged not to have offspring, or have few, because "overpopulation"
Meanwhile irresponsible 3rd world low IQ populations exploded and we're supposed to take them cause "we need em"?
Analyze this~*******er
Go back far enough and there are no "original inhabitants".
Some new findings suggest humans originated in the Middle East and migrated from there.
This was back in 2017.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ddle-East.html
Modern man may have evolved in the Middle East rather than Africa, it has been claimed, after the discovery of remains said to be more than 400,000 years old.
Of course there were original inhabitants in the Americas...That simply means the first humans to arrive in the Americas around 15,000 years ago. In Canada they rightfully call them selves the first peoples or the first nations.
Then you proceeded to give me a lesson in anthropology Are you alright?
5th generation AI robots are already as good as unskilled labor in many jobs. They are only going to get more sophisticated. Will that still mean we need immigrants who can no longer fill a job slot?
Immigration has historically helped economies in the USA, even if the Trump fanboys and girls don't like it. Now a very interesting economic impact assessment article showing why if the USA wants to continue to lead, they need, I mean, really, really need, immigration, and a lot more of it.
The biggest problem is education. Your average white and black woman love going to school and getting a career and have kids late. Now 1st Gen American kids from Latin America, Asia and Africa are doing thr same as native white and American black women. Have kids late to focus on career. We need to remodel on what we focus on women and try to put more emphasis on men.
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.
