Aging US Population Means We Need More Immigration, Not Less

[Geoist]

As the 2010s sees the lowest population growth in the USA since at least 1900, we need to reconsider our priorities. We cannot expect this nation to support an aging population without serious repercussions. We need to do one or both: increase immigration or incentivize young adults to have children.

Young adults are not having children because they don't feel financially secure. The cost of living has gone up dramatically as wages stagnate. The vast majority of wealth is held by boomers. And while the next two decades will see the greatest wealth transfer in American history, by then the damage will already be done. UBI is one way to give Americans more financial security without all the added bureaucracy. Making this country union-friendly again will also help. Both of my grandfathers had secure blue collar union jobs. Each had six children and their wives did not work. Nowadays, if you're raising six children on one income you are either very wealthy or very poor. The other option is to increase immigration. Immigration really is what made America great. Shutting it down or drastically limiting it only makes the population issue worse. On top of that, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they 'take.' Whatever strategy we take, it needs to be done quickly.

 

[Barros Serrano]

Republicans are bothered because the immigrants now arriving are not WHITE. So, why don't they try attracting European immigrants? HAAAAAAa... that's a big joke because Europeans generally don't want to come here, since our society, lacking their demosocialism, is so inferior to theirs.

They know that the country increasingly speaks Spanish (including me, though I'm a white from West Virginia) and oh how painful that is!

¡En el fundillo, cabrones!

 

[Tender Branson]

It would be better for the planet if humans depopulated.

Not steadily increase in population.

It is a false premise that everything has to grow. A reduction to 1 billion would be preferable.

 

[Crovax]

As the 2010s sees the lowest population growth in the USA since at least 1900, we need to reconsider our priorities. We cannot expect this nation to support an aging population without serious repercussions. We need to do one or both: increase immigration or incentivize young adults to have children.

Young adults are not having children because they don't feel financially secure. The cost of living has gone up dramatically as wages stagnate. The vast majority of wealth is held by boomers. And while the next two decades will see the greatest wealth transfer in American history, by then the damage will already be done. UBI is one way to give Americans more financial security without all the added bureaucracy. Making this country union-friendly again will also help. Both of my grandfathers had secure blue collar union jobs. Each had six children and their wives did not work. Nowadays, if you're raising six children on one income you are either very wealthy or very poor. The other option is to increase immigration. Immigration really is what made America great. Shutting it down or drastically limiting it only makes the population issue worse. On top of that, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they 'take.' Whatever strategy we take, it needs to be done quickly.

So what is the ideal population for the US? 500 million, 1 billion, 2 billion?

 

[Phys251]

Republicans are bothered because the immigrants now arriving are not WHITE. So, why don't they try attracting European immigrants? HAAAAAAa... that's a big joke because Europeans generally don't want to come here, since our society, lacking their demosocialism, is so inferior to theirs.

They know that the country increasingly speaks Spanish (including me, though I'm a white from West Virginia) and oh how painful that is!

¡En el fundillo, cabrones!

My sympathies.

 

[Phys251]

So what is the ideal population for the US? 500 million, 1 billion, 2 billion?

Your bad-faith question is DISMISSED.

 

[Crovax]

Your bad-faith question is DISMISSED.

You call it bad faith because you can’t admit that the US can not infinitely grow in population

 

[Barros Serrano]

My sympathies.

They ain't nothin' wrong with being white from West Virginia! We once had an admirable culture, one of only 2 self-sufficient cultures to evolve in America after the Europeans arrived (the other one being the californios). Thanks to timber and coal industries, the attitude that "hillbilly" lives, land, and culture were expendable, Appalachia is in a shambles today.

I go to WV now and the place is seething with opioid addicts and, even worse, Trump supporters! And WV once was very Democratic, due to the Coalminers Union. What a mess!

 

[Phys251]

They ain't nothin' wrong with being white from West Virginia! We once had an admirable culture, one of only 2 self-sufficient cultures to evolve in America after the Europeans arrived (the other one being the californios). Thanks to timber and coal industries, the attitude that "hillbilly" lives, land, and culture were expendable, Appalachia is in a shambles today.

I go to WV now and the place is seething with opioid addicts and, even worse, Trump supporters! And WV once was very Democratic, due to the Coalminers Union. What a mess!

West Virginia is a pretty state, but wow is the culture there stuck in the 20th century.

 

[Deuce]

You call it bad faith because you can’t admit that the US can not infinitely grow in population

We're not anywhere near lacking for space.

Nobody is arguing for "infinite population."

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

As the 2010s sees the lowest population growth in the USA since at least 1900, we need to reconsider our priorities. We cannot expect this nation to support an aging population without serious repercussions. We need to do one or both: increase immigration or incentivize young adults to have children.

Young adults are not having children because they don't feel financially secure. The cost of living has gone up dramatically as wages stagnate. The vast majority of wealth is held by boomers. And while the next two decades will see the greatest wealth transfer in American history, by then the damage will already be done. UBI is one way to give Americans more financial security without all the added bureaucracy. Making this country union-friendly again will also help. Both of my grandfathers had secure blue collar union jobs. Each had six children and their wives did not work. Nowadays, if you're raising six children on one income you are either very wealthy or very poor. The other option is to increase immigration. Immigration really is what made America great. Shutting it down or drastically limiting it only makes the population issue worse. On top of that, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they 'take.' Whatever strategy we take, it needs to be done quickly.

Not really.

Constant growth is an unsustainable model.

The entire Western economic system is built on an unsustainable model.

The fewer people: the better IMO.

 

[Crovax]

We're not anywhere near lacking for space.

Nobody is arguing for "infinite population."

So what is a good population number for the US then?

 

[Geoist]

It would be better for the planet if humans depopulated.

Not steadily increase in population.

It is a false premise that everything has to grow. A reduction to 1 billion would be preferable.

Well, unless you want to support a program to euthanize a certain number of boomers ala Shirley Jackson-style, we need more young workers to support the aging population. But that's fine if you're not for encouraging people to have more babies. I'll put you in the 'increase immigration' category since those people are already here.

Btw, I support the degrowth movement. I wish more people subscribed to the philosophy. But my ideals are about long-term solutions. My pragmatism is about short-term solutions.

 

[Geoist]

Not really.

Constant growth is an unsustainable model.

I am not talking about constant growth. I am referring to the gap between young working taxpaying citizens and a retired boomer population.

The entire Western economic system is built on an unsustainable model.

The fewer people: the better IMO.

I am not talking about economics, per se.

 

[Deuce]

So what is a good population number for the US then?

Infinity and zero are the only possible answers. If you argue for more immigration, you want a population of infinity. This logically means if you argue for less immigration, you want a population of zero.

You are arguing against more immigration, therefore you want to kill every last person in the country.

If your number is not zero and it is not infinity, surely you already had an answer to this question of yours.

Can you answer your own question, or are you going to dodge and prove that it was disingenuous?

 

[Geoist]

So what is the ideal population for the US? 500 million, 1 billion, 2 billion?

It's not about an 'ideal population.' It's about having enough working taxpaying citizens to support retired aging citizens.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I am not talking about constant growth.

I beg your pardon, but I believe that you are.

"Constant growth" is the foundation its all built on. Without constant growth it all falls apart.

 

[Hypothetical]

other than devaluing the current population economically, why exactly do we need more people?

 

[Geoist]

I beg your pardon, but I believe that you are.

"Constant growth" is the foundation its all built on. Without constant growth it all falls apart.

If you're talking about 'constant growth' of the economy then no we don't need constant growth to support an aging population. You just need a stable economy with enough of a working population to support the aging population.

 

[Geoist]

other than devaluing the current population economically, why exactly do we need more people?

Reread OP.

 

[j brown's body]

It would be better for the planet if humans depopulated.

Not steadily increase in population.

It is a false premise that everything has to grow. A reduction to 1 billion would be preferable.

Immigration has no affect on the size of the global population.

A nation's population doesn't neccesarily have to grow for the economy to grow, but with the population shrinking and aging, we need workers to replace them and help sustain them.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

If you're talking about 'constant growth' of the economy then no we don't need constant growth to support an aging population. You just need a stable economy with enough of a working population to support the aging population.

Then what happens when all of those young people that you need to support todays elderly....get to be elderly themselves?

You'll need even more and more younger people. Right?

 

[Crovax]

It's not about an 'ideal population.' It's about having enough working taxpaying citizens to support retired aging citizens.

Yes the Ponzi scheme

 

[Geoist]

Then what happens when all of those young people that you need to support todays elderly....get to be elderly themselves?

You'll need even more and more younger people. Right?

Not necessarily. Technological advancements down the road will more than likely make it far cheaper to meet our basic needs.

 

[Felis Leo]

As the 2010s sees the lowest population growth in the USA since at least 1900, we need to reconsider our priorities. We cannot expect this nation to support an aging population without serious repercussions. We need to do one or both: increase immigration or incentivize young adults to have children.

Young adults are not having children because they don't feel financially secure. The cost of living has gone up dramatically as wages stagnate. The vast majority of wealth is held by boomers. And while the next two decades will see the greatest wealth transfer in American history, by then the damage will already be done. UBI is one way to give Americans more financial security without all the added bureaucracy. Making this country union-friendly again will also help. Both of my grandfathers had secure blue collar union jobs. Each had six children and their wives did not work. Nowadays, if you're raising six children on one income you are either very wealthy or very poor. The other option is to increase immigration. Immigration really is what made America great. Shutting it down or drastically limiting it only makes the population issue worse. On top of that, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they 'take.' Whatever strategy we take, it needs to be done quickly.

All for it. So long as those who come wish to live in a society that values individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness and want to become Americans, I want as many people as possible to immigrate here. I especially want the oppressed and downtrodden of other nations to come and succeed here under our system.