Yes, regarding the immigration issue, I’m in tune with Rune. While it’s pleasant to think that all people are basically alike and are capable of getting along well regardless of the circumstances where they were born and raised, culture does matter. That’s been proved beyond a doubt. You let in some Muslims because you want them to clean your toilets and make your beds. Ten years later they’re rioting in the streets because an obscure newspaper printed some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Small wonder that most countries don’t want to repeat that. Small wonder that Denmark and other European countries have drastically changed their immigration policies in recent years do chop down on the number of immigrants from the Muslim world.
While a country could hope to attract skilled and useful immigrants while keeping out the riff-raff, it’s easier said than done.
Well, that makes this thread make more sense. You have problems with the “wrong” kind of people being allowed to immigrate. That helps put your whole attitude in perspective.
So, legalize oppression of the ghey and keep out unstable Muslims.
Anything else we can do in order to solve the drastic and dire problem of underpopulation?
The real problem in many countries isn’t under-population, it is an ageing demographic distribution; that is to say people are living longer, with a smaller proportion of the population actually in productive work, and a smaller proportion of the population available to care for the elderly.
One solution is to encourage or permit the immigration of younger people into the country to perform some of these tasks, but these younger incomers will eventually become older and require care themselves.
The movie *Logan’s Run * suggested one solution, but it would be rather nice to find a more acceptable one…
the problem with that is that developing nations reach a higher GDP growth they too see their population replacement rates drop. The total fertility rate necessary to replace a population is 2.1, and the majority of developed countries fall below this. Most middle income countries fall near it, and poor countries are above it.
So that is a short term solution, because if Europe accepts immigrants from Africa what happens in 40 years if/when Africa has a per capita GDP of $5000 and their fertility rate drops to replacement levels too?
Also, there are cultural issues with immigration, can immigrants accept the prevailing culture of the nation they immigrate to. I think this is a major concern in Japan.
I think you are being a little unfair to ITR. Social distress in Europe from the non-integration of Muslim immigrants is a real problem.
Maybe another example would be less incendiary. Minority groups you never heard of want to emigrate out of Myanmar to Bangladesh- can you imagine a situation where you think you’d find a better life in Bangladesh? Well long story short it is out of the frying pan and into the fire for most of them. Myanmar is no good for them and Bangladesh has enough problems already. The immigrants themselves end up with unhappy lives, effectively having nowhere to go for a stable existence.
This doesn’t address the demographic question of course, only the immigrant friction one. I don’t know what to do about too many old people. Invest in things like health care operations, grocery delivery and UPS/FedEx type operations and hope capitalism picks up the slack while turning a personal profit. Or encourage people to fuck more. Trouble is total global population is its own problem apart from demographic issues. The planet passed peak ocean-food-output some time ago. We appear to be at peak oil now and peak other things are on the horizon. More young people to take care of more old people won’t help if there is not enough food, fuel and consumer goods to go around.
I don’t see the comparison. You’re talking about Burmese refugees trying to escape a brutal regime by fleeing to a country of impoverished subsistence farmers – the question here, though, is about developed nations facing a shortage of labor. If labor is, in fact, in short supply then immigrants would have a place for themselves in the Global North, which is not like what is apparently happening in Bangladesh at all.
I’m pretty optimistic about this scenario. Most young people today either have no jobs, or fairly pointless jobs that are not essential to the functioning of society. In a society where workers are genuinely scarce, all of them should get a chance to do something meaningful, and it will give them more power over their employers.
As mentioned, it’s not an underpopulation problem so much as it’s a demographics problem. There’s anxiety in places like Japan and China because their populations skew older, which puts inordinate pressure on the younger population to support them.
I’ve seen China’s one-child policy referred to as a “four grandparent policy.” A negligible welfare state and less “dutiful grandchildren” available to provide care induces people to save more to fund their retirement years. This dynamic, along with capital controls that keep savings in domestic banks (that pay low interest) and high inflation, was probably the main factor in China’s real estate bubble. The only alternative to stashing your savings in the bank was to invest in real estate in the hopes of a positive real return.
It isn’t perfect, but the gist is people in overpopulated areas may not have anywhere realistically to go. They don’t fit in with the culture- in Bangladesh it is still worse because the economy also doesn’t have a use for them. If Burmese went to China instead, where there are already about a billion peasants, would they be much more welcome?
And do people really want to migrate to be the servants of old people of an entirely different culture (kind of like ITR’s example of Muslims moving to, say, France). Economic pressure makes it go for awile, one side gets labor and the other side gets jobs, but after awhile their are a lot of disaffected poor people that don’t relate to the dominant culture. Telling them “Quit being Muslim and start acting French” doesn’t seem to work.
If they’re willing to try to seek asylum in an incredibly densely populated country where they’ll have no home and floods kill people by the millions, I would imagine they would not be totally averse to immigrating to the UK or the US instead, but maybe I just don’t understand Burmese refuges well enough.
Perhaps its my bias as an American speaking, but I don’t see why it’s necessary for immigrants to blend in the way you seem to want. From the history of my country, it’s pretty clear that while some groups have maintained their separateness, it doesn’t last for more than a generation or two except when the dominant group restricts the ability of newcomers to join in with their society. And to whatever extent cultural differences are maintained, I’m not all that hung up on making sure everyone speaks the same language at home and eats the same thing for lunch. As far as food goes, in fact, I don’t know what the hell I’d eat if it weren’t for immigrants.
Probably the biggest factor is where they can sneak across a border. Apparently Myanmar is a place some people just gotta leave, and Bangladesh is pretty much the only choice. Getting to America isn’t practical.
Speaking of America, our Mexican immigrants fit in much better IMHO. Spanish is at least a romance language and the people are a part of the overall regional milieu. There isn’t a war going on, just cops and grumpy old people. There is already an established Hispanic community here which no doubt helps new immigrants get on their feet. Could be way worse.
Support like this is available for immigrants to the US from pretty much anywhere in the world, but they can’t be had on foot and so quotas are mostly enforceable.
Yes. Burma is is pretty much hell on earth, and so it’s no wonder people are desperate to escape. I’m not particularly clear on why we’re talking about this again. Anyway, if Japan or Western Europe becomes desperate enough for young people, the Global South has plenty of 'em.
Yes, but net immigration from Mexico is currently below zero. (It tends to respond a lot to the economy.) At any rate, I’m not sure what this comparison is about, as I don’t think anyone was arguing about which countries we should permit immigration from. I also don’t see what speaking a Romance language has to do with anything.
I question whether mass immigration is as easy a solution to demographic imbalances as some people suggest. In theory it sounds good, but in practice we can observe various degrees of success. It only works out so well in some parts of the world, and I don’t think a billion people relocating will be welcomed by all.
It might be “obvious” to you, but I would prefer to see actual information supporting that claim. Given Singapore’s unique situation that includes wealth, limited land area, a recent immigrant population with its own new culture, it seems quite probable that the trend of increased wealth and lower population is simply exaggerated in Singapore and that the government efforts were extraneous.
Beyond which, Singapore is little more than an isolated metropolis. What happens in Singapore is unlikely to be a harbinger of what will happen in Japan or South Korea. And, continuing that line of thought: why do we need to address population changes in Japan and Korea? A population collapse in either country will hardly make a significant impact on the world’s population or exacerbate issues related to overpopulation.
Another item. Old folks should get used to institutionalized elder care. A single child with four grandparents cannot be expected to look after them himself. And of course there are already lots who have no children at all. And for society a single person can perhaps look after two elder people if done privately, whereas an old people’s home can look after five elder people per worker. More if emerging technologies are applied. Like automated washing.