Immigrants from impoverished and corrupt countries will want to come here for the same reasons they always have – opportunities that even their own improving native economies can’t provide.
They may start as laborers and care providers but their children will have the chance to become doctors and scientists and technology experts. That remains a fierce draw for many.
Looks like it’s been roughly flat since 1995. And it’s still pretty good. You can call that “stagnation”. Or you can call it “continuing to live the good life”. 
I wouldn’t want to immigrate to Japan because I’m not Japanese, and that’s a huge deal in Japan. But it’s a pretty attractive place to live in many ways for the Japanese.
It’s pretty much the definition of stagnation in economics, yes, so I can call it that, and in fact that is what it is called.
Considering how a flat nominal per capita GDP is in actuality a drop in real per capita GDP, I certainly would not call it continuing to live the good life. Any more than I would call Wile E Coyote running in the air over a cliff “continuing to live the good life”.
Well, yes, but honestly, i think there’s a problem with an entire economic theory that requires constant growth. I mean, it’s obviously a theory that’s good at explaining and predicting a lot of things, but it’s baked-in values have some problems, IMHO.
Sure, if you think an economy with 30% unemployment, 30% inflation and 40% of residents under the poverty line is chock full of opportunities. Nigerians can (in a more ideal aging America) come here and get a job in an economy that is functioning right now.
They can essentially slot right into the roles that native born Americans would take if they existed in sufficient numbers. Maybe not the best jobs the American economy has to offer, but it’s better than being unemployed in Nigeria.
The baked-in values are what created the modern world, and while the modern world isn’t perfect, all the things you like about it come from this too. All the lofty human rights in the world vanish the moment there is not enough surplus to comfortably maintain them. History teaches this lesson again and again.
There’s something incredibly ironic in people using the immense privileges that industrialized society has given them to complain about how much they dislike industrialized society.
Anyways, we currently use up like, 0.0002% of the energy the Earth receives each day. There’s plenty of room for growth.
I don’t dislike modern society. And i understand that when things don’t grow (on average) they eventually shrink away. But i also know that if the current human population dropped to zero growth, it would be many generations before there was any risk of that. And that’s too far for me (or you) to make reasonable predictions.
A question I have is this:
Lots of EU countries are increasing defense spending. But, that spending will only be useful if it comes with more soldiers.
Germany, Poland, Finland, Italy, France, the Baltics, maybe all of Europe is below replacement. How does one grow its military when one has insufficient young people to drive the economy? Doesn’t one have to rob Peter to pay Paul in this case?
If you’re already poor, never went to college, don’t see a benefit to higher education then that cost entirely evaporates and having kids is more affordable. A LOT more affordable. It’s the middle class (broadly defined) that does want their kids to go to college, have “enrichment” as part of their lives and education, and so forth for him having kids looks cost-prohibitive.
They also have a much higher opportunity cost - they could travel and retire early without kids, and the poor can’t do those things either way. If kids deter career progression, it’s again the higher-earners that have more to lose there.
Now, I read some while ago, but cannot find the source to verify (or remotely remember where I read it to know it was even a halfway decent source) that while when you get to very high earners (people who can afford nannies, so they still have time off, can pay for college and activities for multiple children without feeling it, etc.), the number of children goes up, that it’s still below replacement level, even for American billionaires (albeit, qualified as under 40 years old, if I recall correctly). If that is indeed the case, it’s not money that’s holding people back.
Another aspect to this: American society emphasizes self-reliance and middle-class and above people attempt to be self-sufficient. More inclined to hire a baby sitter than to use a relative, as an example.
Poor folks don’t have the resources to be that sort of self-reliant, so they relay more on a network of family (and friends). That’s an instance where having more kids is still a benefit these days… if your family is the sort you can actually rely on for help.
Rich people hire nannies. Poor people have their nieces and nephews look after the toddlers.
Absolutely true. Though, of course, that can result in a “crab bucket” result for some family members, too (not necessarily out of spite, mind you, but the end result being similar). Very mixed bag.
I’ve also read a study (just the one, and I don’t know if others conflict) that people tend to ask the same people for favors over and over. If you asked niblings John, Lisa, and Amy to babysit last time, and John and Lisa said no, but Amy said yes, next time you go directly to Amy and then you do so the time after that and the time after that and it can end up with the same person “giving” over and over again.
Very unlikely anymore, given that even American born scientists are more and more looking for ways to leave the country. There’s not going to be much opportunity for immigrants for such things in an anti-intellectual nation that hates immigrants that has wrecked its economy and educational system while driving its scientifically educated population out of the country (or worse).
Because if we’re talking about the future of America, that’s going to be the post-Trump wreckage, not what it used to be like.
Conscription and eating the cost of removing young people from the work force for a few years. It can be done, but the cost in dollars and productivity absolutely hurts. It’s just a matter of priorities and direct threats to sovereignty trumps aging-out economies most of the time. Russia is hollowing out demographically, but it’s not stopping them. Over the next five years Sweden is aiming at ramping up defense spending to 3.5% and expand their military by 27,000 out of a population of a little over 10.5 million and a replacement rate of ~1.5. It’s going to hurt, but they feel they have little alternative.
That’s over 2% of their population age 20 to 29, entry level age group, coming out of the workforce. Yeah gonna hurt. Good thing they are liberalizing their immigration policies so they have enough young workers! What’s that you say? They are clamping down on immigration with more and more new restrictions?
Stupidity is not exclusively an American product I guess?
By the way Sweden’s 1.5 replacement rate is with very generous incentives for families.
All those aging people’s houses and stuff, for one thing.
That’s a bleaker future than I’m willing to entertain right now but if the nation really is entering a period of serious decline, then that’s “good” news for future birth rates. Poorer, less educated countries correlate with higher birth rates, especially after our conservative overlords criminalize contraception.
Detroit has plenty of empty houses, but you don’t see mass migration by people eager to take that stuff.
What people migrate for is a way to make a living, not the ruins left behind when a population shrinks.
I wasn’t talking about the stuff left over after the olds died. I was talking about the housing and food and money they’d provide to their caregivers. You know, as they make a living.
How is a society composed of a bunch of old fucks who haven’t produced anything in decades going to pay these caregivers?
If you’re a prospective migrant, why would you go to the country whose economy tanked because everyone is old, instead of the country whose economy is booming?
All the saved up money in the world won’t help them, because if a country’s productive capacity crashes, their currency will crash too.
At the end of the day, the only way to pay for something like elder care is to set aside a portion of society’s productive capacity to do so. An aging society simply doesn’t have enough surplus productive capacity to provide elderly people with the kind of standard of living we would expect.