[karajorma]

Might as well point out the whole Belgium link now.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/terrorists-belgium-paris-attacks

More than 250 Belgians have left the country to fight alongside jihadis in Syria and Iraq; about 75 have died in combat and 125 have returned. According to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, Belgium has the highest rate of foreign fighters per capita of all Europe.

And funnily enough it's implicated in a long list of terrorist attacks.

[The E]

If we managed to survive and even prosper through youth bulges of the past (which were full of unproductive people, too), then we will manage to live and prosper through a bulge of old people. It is the same thing, just with a time lag of a few generations. Especially when we are a fairly developed wealthy country now, we can do it, there will be issues but it absolutely will not lead to a "country unable to function properly", that is just fear mongering.

Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age. Unless you assume that individual productivity rises enough so that one working member of society can support several elderly ones, it's going to be necessary to cut welfare for the elderly.
This is Japan's problem: They're not going to be able to support their aging population if demographic trends continue, unless they cut standards or devise a method to keep increasing economic output per person or encourage immigration. Cutting standards is never going to go over well. Increasing productivity assumes that continual progress can and will be made (which is incredibly optimistic). The only method known and guaranteed to work is to import labor from elsewhere.

To a lesser extent, this is true of any developed nation. Raising these issues and questioning whether we're doing enough to keep our society functioning at the standards we're used is not fear mongering. It's prudent.

Having 2,1 children per couple is an ideal situation that is rare in reality. We should not rely on it, rather we must learn adapt to these less than ideal situations. Not begin replace our own people with different ones at the first sign of trouble.

That said, immigration can be part of a solution to mitigate the demographic crisis. I am not a xenophobe opposed to every immigrant. But it must be regulated immigration of productive and culturally compatible people who will assimilate well. Not mass immigration of everyone who wants to come. That will not make the situation better in the long run.

How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?

[666maslo666]

One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one dependent for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.

Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.

Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.

How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?

Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.

Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them. So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.

[Akalabeth Angel]

New raid in St. Denis caught or killed 7 individuals. One of whom blew herself up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657

[Scotty]

One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one elderly for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.

Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.

Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.

This is because youths grow up and enter the workforce.  Elderly people do not.  As life expectancy increases, the number of people who are retired and no longer contributing to the workforce increases relative to the population in addition to absolutely.  This is not an anomalous spike in the number of elderly residents in a country, it's a trend that has been apparent for decades.

[666maslo666]

I found a really nice study about Japan aging with actually relevant numbers:

http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/ppfj2012.pdf

Look at page 31. Currently, working age people make up 63,8% of Japanese population. In 2060, this very important number is going to decrease to somewhere between 52,6% and 48,9%, depending on some assumptions about future fertility and mortality rates.

Now it is undeniably a negative development.

But, is such decrease going to ruin the Japanese economy?

Certainly not. It is just not significant enough to do anything like that.

[headdie]

New raid in St. Denis caught or killed 7 individuals. One of whom blew herself up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657

Damn they not sure if they got the bastard behind it

[The E]

Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.

Sure, you can do that.

But then you're not going to get as many immigrants as you need, your criteria are incredibly prejudiced (and easily proven to be prejudiced), and you're going to only get qualified people which will cause unrest among your population because they're going to take previously high-paying jobs away from the natives. See, for example, German immigrants in Switzerland.

And let me ask you a question: If you're going to sort by ethnicity and deducting points for being, say, Romani, how the **** are you not being racist?

Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them.
So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.

You are incredibly wrong. The more educated and older your population gets, the fewer people are there to do the low-paying, entry-level jobs the economy needs. That's where immigrants come in. They're going to make better money than they would get at home, they get to lay foundations for social mobility for their children, and while they're doing it, do a valuable service for the economy.

If you restrict immigration to qualified people on the other hand they're going to be seen as a threat by your own natives, because they're going to compete for the high-paying, high profile jobs people want to get. This causes friction.

I found a really nice study about Japan aging with actually relevant numbers:

http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/ppfj2012.pdf

Look at page 31. Currently, working age people make up 63,8% of Japanese population. In 2060, this very important number is going to decrease to somewhere between 52,6% and 48,9%, depending on some assumptions about future fertility and mortality rates.

Now it is undeniably a negative development.

But, is such decrease going to ruin the Japanese economy?

Certainly not. It is just not significant enough to do anything like that.

Look at the table on the next page and the page preceding it. The proportion of young people under working age declines from 13.1 to 6.9 to 11.6%. The proportion of people in retirement age rises from 23% to 35% to 44%. What does that mean? In simple terms, the number of people dependant on state help rises sharply, while the number of people replenishing the workforce falls drastically.

A clear illustration of this can be found in table 1-4. Here, even under the most optimistic of assumptions, the dependency ratio (i.e. the ratio between the working members of society and nonworking ones) rises sharply from 56.7% to 92.7%, meaning that each working person will have to support about 1 nonworking person. Under pessimistic assumptions, 1 worker will have to support 1 nonworker. This is not sustainable unless we assume that individual productivity can rise to a level where the economy can bear the burden, which is an assumption that is fundamentally unsafe and idiotic to make. As a result, Japan needs to court massive immigration, as this is the only safe option that can rebalance the age pyramid and make sure that the country remains stable.

[Col.Hornet]

Boom, boom, boom.

https://www.funker530.com/france-drops-bombs-on-daesh-in-raqqa-syria/

French Air Force has begun the bombardment of Raqqa.

May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible. However I don't believe that air strikes alone will solve the problem. Decisive victory will have to be achieved "on foot".

[zookeeper]

May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible.

Seems more likely that they'll mainly kill and maim civilians as usual.

[Bobboau]

yeah, well that's not what one would hope for.

[Col.Hornet]

May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible.

Seems more likely that they'll mainly kill and maim civilians as usual.

Collateral damage :/  Ugly thing but it is never 0% even today with precise guided ordnance.

I hope that they have good intel though.

[LHN91]

One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one dependent for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.

Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.

Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.

How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?

Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.

Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them. So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.

Perhaps it's anecdotal, but here in southern Ontario we just watched a major steel company collapse in large part because their pension program was paying for 20000 retirees, but they only had 800 current employees. The ballooning number of elderly is a serious problem, and 1 child does not cost nearly the same as one elderly person to support. The two are simply not comparable.

[Bobboau]

so what you all are saying is that all the people who have been saying that there are too many people, that the earth cannot sustain a never ending growth in human population were all full of **** and we really should all have had 9 kids like our grandparents..

[Phantom Hoover]

No, we're saying that when the population starts to shrink your civilisation is barrelling rapidly towards a cliff.

[Mongoose]

Y'know, as someone who can trace his ancestry to multiple Eastern European ethnicities (including your own maslo), the completely racist-as-**** behavior by so many of those countries over the refugee issue makes me incredibly ashamed to admit as much.

[headdie]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/abdelhamid-abaaoud-killed-saint-denis-raid-officials-n466146?cid=sm_fb

The Belgian jihadist suspected of being the ringleader of the Paris terrorist attacks was killed during a raid on a suburban apartment, officials said Thursday.

Got the bastard

[666maslo666]

Sure, you can do that.

But then you're not going to get as many immigrants as you need, your criteria are incredibly prejudiced (and easily proven to be prejudiced), and you're going to only get qualified people which will cause unrest among your population because they're going to take previously high-paying jobs away from the natives. See, for example, German immigrants in Switzerland.

And let me ask you a question: If you're going to sort by ethnicity and deducting points for being, say, Romani, how the **** are you not being racist?

Qualified people is what I want. It is the unqualified that cause unrest and steal jobs.

I did not say anything about ethnicity, you are putting words in my mouth. I said nationality, education, income.. all perfectly valid criteria that can be used to select immigrants. Remember, immigration is a privilege, not a right. You ultimately do not have to allow anyone to immigrate. So whether you want to consider points system a prejudice or not, it is the best system and entirely ethical.

You are incredibly wrong. The more educated and older your population gets, the fewer people are there to do the low-paying, entry-level jobs the economy needs. That's where immigrants come in. They're going to make better money than they would get at home, they get to lay foundations for social mobility for their children, and while they're doing it, do a valuable service for the economy.

If you restrict immigration to qualified people on the other hand they're going to be seen as a threat by your own natives, because they're going to compete for the high-paying, high profile jobs people want to get. This causes friction.

It is the opposite in eastern Europe, we certainly have too much unqualified people and too little qualified ones. Anyway, I do not believe there will be strong need for unqualified labor in the future, not here and not in Japan. Modern economies simply do not need many such people, and this trend will only continue in the future. By importing them you are more likely to increase poverty and steal jobs than truly help the economy.

There is one more important point to make here. Most taxes are usually paid by high paying workers, especially in progressive tax systems, with low paying workers barely breaking even when it comes to funding the state. So even if you import lots of low paying workers, they wont help much to fund pensions, if at all.

Look at the table on the next page and the page preceding it. The proportion of young people under working age declines from 13.1 to 6.9 to 11.6%. The proportion of people in retirement age rises from 23% to 35% to 44%. What does that mean? In simple terms, the number of people dependant on state help rises sharply, while the number of people replenishing the workforce falls drastically.

A clear illustration of this can be found in table 1-4. Here, even under the most optimistic of assumptions, the dependency ratio (i.e. the ratio between the working members of society and nonworking ones) rises sharply from 56.7% to 92.7%, meaning that each working person will have to support about 1 nonworking person. Under pessimistic assumptions, 1 worker will have to support 1 nonworker. This is not sustainable unless we assume that individual productivity can rise to a level where the economy can bear the burden, which is an assumption that is fundamentally unsafe and idiotic to make. As a result, Japan needs to court massive immigration, as this is the only safe option that can rebalance the age pyramid and make sure that the country remains stable.

It is as I said, one working person may have to support one non-working, but not several ones. This is not an ideal situation, but sustainable IMHO. I do believe individual productivity will rise significantly until 2060, because of investments in science and technology and general growth of the economy and efficiency. Past trends are clearly like this and there is no reason to believe it will not continue to hold.


Another thing to take into account is that this is not all about the pensions. If you allow immigration of migrants that have trouble assimilating, then you are also importing crime, poverty, ethnic conflicts, terrorism and extremism. And this is a very serious issue because once you admit such people inside the country and they wont integrate well, such problems can go on for many generations or centuries. You could be negatively affecting even you childrens children. These reasons alone are sufficient to justify being very careful about who to let in.

[NGTM-1R]

Can we just get someone to strike out every statement made without evidence here? It'll leave the post in ruins, but it'd be just.

[666maslo666]

so what you all are saying is that all the people who have been saying that there are too many people, that the earth cannot sustain a never ending growth in human population were all full of **** and we really should all have had 9 kids like our grandparents..

Number of children needed for stable population is around 2.1 per couple. Any deviation from this, either higher or lower, and you have changing population size which means more economically inactive dependents per working person (either children or old people). So all having 9 kids is not a good idea. But neither is having only 1.3 kids.