Way I see it, those “old fucks” aren’t responsible for society’s productive capacity and haven’t really been for a generation. The service industry, that employs most Americans, is not productive. The manufacturing, agriculture and resource industries, that are productive, have reduced human labour requirements due to automation and mechanization.
Sure. But productive capacity is not synonymous with human labour. If those elderly have been replaced with automation of some sort, as many have, there’s productive capacity.
Plus, you seem to be not considering that the productive capacity of the immigrants (and their families) is added to the USA’s capacity.
Of course you’ll have to wrench power over the automated part of total productive capacity from the cold, dead fingers of the oligarchs first. Best get on that. That way, the economy doesn’t tank and old codgers’ savings are still worth enough to lure the absolutely wretched of the Earth.
Bringing in immigrants to care for old people fails to address the core issue of an aging population.
Bringing in immigrants to maintain the country’s productive capacity while the native born population ages, does address the core issue. Of course, the old coots need to be OK with turning over the nation to these immigrants and their descendants some day.
Depends on your definition of “productive”. The service industry produces services that people happily consume, so that’s productive in my book.
Also, there are many desk job workers in roles that facilitate production, one way or another, even if they aren’t directly cutting down trees and carving them into chairs.
You’re missing my point. That’s precisely what I am considering. These immigrants have productive capacity, which is of immense value. I just don’t see why they’d choose to tie themselves to a sinking ship full of elderly people rather than going wherever explosive growth is. Growing economies are going to be able to offer these potential immigrants much more in exchange for their labor, so that’s where the majority of them will head.
Yeah, I see this as a real problem. You need to distribute the benefits of productivity or it doesn’t do much good.
My field employed a lot of immigrants. One of the top three people at my prior employer was an Indian woman whose accent suggests she was an immigrant. If we increase immigration now I think we can have a smooth and gentle transition of power. And maintain a pleasant and thriving country.
(Why yes, i do what little i can to support immigration. And yes, current politics terrifies me, and may well lead to our nation’s collapse as a place people want to live, imho.)
Not sunk yet and the ship has good bones? And where is that wherever there is explosive growth?
The simple reality is that large numbers are trying to move into these greying countries. Lots of reasons. Escape from more oppressive governments. Better economic opportunities. Climate refugees. Military conflict. Escape from oppressive criminal gangs.
Service and manufacturing both count as productivity. Both create a tax paying base and pay into the social security system.
And make rape legal again. You can be sure that’s coming, along with repeal of laws agaisnt domestic violence and the stripping of most other legal rights for women. It’s how they’ll solve the issue of reproductive rates falling; give women no choice in the matter. She doesn’t want children? Beat her into submission and rape her until she’s pregnant.
Stop scaring kids and young people with horror stories about global warming and other doom and gloom predictions. And stop telling them the earth is overpopulated - too many people still think high birth rates are a problem. This is obviously counterproductive.
Reduce time spent in education. It extends childhood and delays people getting settled in their careers. Taking a high percentage of young people out of the workforce for an additional 4 or 6 years makes the dependency ratio worse, too. Most post-secondary education is just signalling anyway; we don’t need people spending 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars on that.
Cheaper housing. People stuck living with their parents or in shared accommodation aren’t going to start a family.
Make childrearing easier. Kids used to go out and play with their friends unsupervised, and parents were mostly responsible for feeding, clothing and housing them. Now parents are expected to entertain their kids, ferry them around to activities, and supervise them closely. Education is a lot more competitive, too - I suspect this may contribute to the super-low birth rates in East Asian countries. Encouraging free-range kids and stigmatising helicopter parenting, and reducing the pressure to get good grades and attend a good college would help with this.
Babies. We need to get people more familiar with them. There was a trial in Australia where they gave teen girls ‘new born baby’ dolls to care for, which required regular feeding, cried and would wake them in the night. Contrary to expectations, this increased the rates of teen pregnancy. Exposure to the babies of friends and family helps trigger ‘baby fever’ in women, so the low birth rate has compounding effects. Maybe young women should be encouraged to work in childcare for a certain period of time? Or offer young couples who just got married subsidised housing in a nice suburb where they will be surrounded by parents of young children?
Artificial wombs would help, too. Lots of women are put off having more children by difficult pregnancies or births, and the resulting health issues. Pregnancy really sucks in humans.
Disagree, it’s a reality, and even to raise the birthrate, it’s counter productive to NOT bring it up, because those future kids and young people are going (ideally) to be voting on efforts to limit or correct the problem.
I do think that increasing options for in-school vocational training would be helpful, perhaps one that transitions into direct post secondary school OTJ training/employment. I disagree that “most” such education is just signalling but any long discussion on that statement would probably take over the thread!
Very likely true, but we have a metric ton of reasons why cheaper housing would be good, and yet the USA is not moving in that direction, so not a bad idea, but not practical. Good brainstorming though!
I could see government funded child-care centers, or the former pre-K schooling or after-school options, but that also runs counter to the last few decades of school funding and the like at least in the USA. Other nations I suspect can and do do better. This, as mentioned by many others in the thread would be a semi-ideal place to use older but healthy “non-productive” (yes, scare quotes) seniors.
The mention is really interesting, do you have a cite? Because this could be inexpensive (comparatively) and if it increases desire to have children, without coercion or substantial cost, could very well be practical.
While this would be amazing, I see zero evidence that an artificial womb anywhere in the near future, and I doubt such could be created, tested, and perfected in a timeframe that would effect any of the worst-case scenarios or nations mentioned in this thread. So, no, not practical IMHO.
FTR, I do not agree with the premise that most nations need to increase the birthrate in the short term (there are outliers mentioned in this thread), and agree that a slow decrease in population would be beneficial, though lots of arguments can be made for what the final target population should be. Just not fighting the hypothetical for the moment.
No. The people in power are rabidly misogynistic, and have a habit of tolerating rape and often being rapists themselves. And to be blunt, all I’m saying it that things will regress a few decades because that is exactly how things used to be. Marital rape was only made illegal in beginning in the 1970s. And the Right has been fantasizing about stripping women of the vote for decades now; now, they can.
Why just teen girls? Why not also teen boys? Actually, it used to be common that a lot of the girls in high schools in the U.S. didn’t take what were called college preparatory courses. They took what were called home economics courses. They learned about taking care of children and cooking for their families. Boys weren’t allowed to take these courses. I think there’s a reasonable argument for both boys and girls in high schools to get some training in cooking, child care, and understanding the economics of family (and single) life. These shouldn’t be entire courses but just occasional classes for each high school student. It’s actually somewhat common now that a wife might have a better-playing job than a husband, so he should do more staying home with the kids than her.
Really I agree; I know I could have used more education on practical “how to live day to day” issues like that. Treating girls as if that was all they had to learn was bad, but that does mean kids of both genders shouldn’t be taught basic life skills. Really, that old system was sexist towards both genders; the learned helplessness on such issues of boys and men due to relegating most household work into the “women’s work, don’t touch because cooties” box didn’t do them any favors.
Hey, this is IMHO, not the pit. And that is a pit-worthy rant. I believe you could have expressed the idea that the US is moving towards reducing women’s rights, and especially the rights of women with male partners to avoid pregnancy, and the right of women without male partners to live a comfortable life that way, in a style more suitable to this forum.
And while legalizing domestic violence may or may not be on our horizon, it’s a hijack in this thread, which is focused on population growth and the birth rate. And not on the (admittedly related) topic of women’s rights. I’m pretty certain that birth control, abortion, and women choosing not to partner men are more important factors in our birth rate than whether married women have a right to refuse sex.
Please keep your posts in this thread on topic and suitable to IMHO.
That’s a long ways off, but improving the chances of pregnancy in older women would help a lot. I have two sets of friends that wanted to have kids but weren’t able (and IVF wasn’t successful). They were in their early 40s.
Women that want careers are likely to start right out of college. They eventually reach a point where they can afford (career-wise) to have kids–but then they’re 40+, and fertility has dropped significantly.
I think it actually would make a difference if just 5 fertile years could be added, because 35-40 are a significant threshold. Could just mean an increase in the IVF success rate. Lower costs would help also.
Oh, no arguments and of course, it was a point made in the great prophetic work Idiocracy, where the delays of “smart” individuals in terms of schooling, career can absolutely snowball when combined with possible health issues.
Anecdote, but my brother (younger by 2 years) and his wife were delaying due to the above issues, when she (1 year older) dictated to him that she was 34 and it was TIME for her to have kids. So I have a niece (12 going on 30) and a nephew (15 and very 15) that could otherwise have been missed!
My only real dispute with the point was that again, I find it very unlikely that full artificial gestation and wombs will arrive in a time frame likely to help smooth out any of the at-risk nations mentioned earlier. Though, I at least found one designed for extremely premature infants that’s in the undergoing animal testing. Of course, I expect massive social and ethical concerns will need to be resolved even if this tech gets fast-tracked.
Just mulling on this more…
Another option, somewhat distasteful to some, is surrogates. And if you want to get extra dicey, surrogates in low-cost-of-living countries. $25k isn’t going to get you one in the US, but that money goes a lot farther in some countries. (as an aside, how does citizenship work in this case?)
There’s still the embryo problem. People want their own kids, but it may be that the embryos aren’t viable that late (I think this was the case among my friends).
So why not just freeze them early? Maybe have incentives for freezing embryos as early as possible. The women can make the actual decision later.
Of course, this also conflicts with some religious doctrine. But I think that’s a minority even among the religious.
I have a friend who recently had a baby with the help of IVF and a surrogate. Her issue was that her womb is barely capable of supporting a pregnancy, and when she finally got an embryo to implant, with the aid of a lot of expensive medical intervention, she developed preeclampsia quite early in the pregnancy and had to have an abortion. (The alternative being they both died.) She was told that she had about a 50% chance of dying of she got pregnant again. Thus, the surrogate.
Anyway, harvesting eggs is a bfd. Collecting and freezing sperm is pretty cheap. Not eggs. And unfertilized eggs don’t freeze well, you do need to pick the father right away. Anyway, lots of logistical issues, some health risks, and a lot of cost in collecting those embryos.