Peak population may be coming sooner than we think
ft.com
ft.com
The current world economy is built on the assumption that the population pyramid is a pyramid, if there’s a glut in the influx of healthy new citizens a whole slew of supply chains will collapse.
According to my high-school econ teacher, who defined economics as the art of satisfying our unlimited desires with limited resources.
I never argue in bad faith. I am unaware of any data which show that the economic disruptions do to demographic issues is going to be worse than the economic disruptions due to new tech replacing old.
I also am unaware of any actual data which says that the population is going to shrink faster than productivity increases.
The US is in the news now. It has something like five million illegal immigrants that work for next to nothing. Losing that source of cheap labour would be a wrenching change.
And this is an economic system problem. The solution to an economic problem is not more people
The solution to an economic problem is revamping the economic system aka more share of wealth going to average people than merely the wealthy sitting on compounding growth.
Do they? As a non-American just watching in, I got the impression that Trump won on this very issue, promising that "Christian family values" would bring about a reversal. That was certainly the message, when taken at face value (I understand many believe that it is trying to mask other motives), that made it out of the USA, at least. That suggests to me that the concern is there.
I expect most people do understand the impact, but, much like climate change, don't know how to actually bring about the change that is needed without infringing on the life they want to live.
If you were a single issue voter on that particular issue, he was the obvious choice, but I don't think that issue is something on most people's minds or responsible for a significant proportion of single issue voters that could have been swayed to Trump.
Certainly, I think the rabid anti-natalism among the Democratic party is probably more responsible for a shift of any of said voters concerned about demographics than any declared natalist position that Trump advanced. He really hasn't pushed policy any further in that way than would have been considered very normal 10 or 15 years ago. With the sole exception of some states being allowed to implement abortion bans (although the extent to which that is really a natalist policy I think is up for debate, I don't think the majority of pro life voters conceptualize it in that way or expect it to have a measurable demographic effect).
Immigration and inflation and the cultural out of touchness of the opposing candidate all contributed to his win more than explicit fear about declining birth rates. That definitely contributes somewhat to the above fears, but it can't account for them entirely.
I feel qualified to speak on this being from a conservative family and being much more willing to consider Trump than I think the majority of the HackerNews audience is. Also, I'm located in Texas, where my point of view is perhaps somewhere around the median on a left - right axis. I've never once heard birth rates brought up by family or friends as a reason somebody wanted to vote for Trump. That being said, it would make sense if they did, and it's something I'd be interested in, on account of being a little more wonky than most of my family and friends, and thinking it's a serious issue that is still being vastly under discussed.
Is it? You seem to stand pretty firm on your position (which is a fair one, for what it is worth).
The only problem, exemplified by the Windrush Generation in the UK, is the rampant racism towards the people who are immigrating to help you.