Population and Housing

[Vojnik_Vahaj]

Population decline isn't bad in most cases. Populations rise and fall almost cyclicly(when it is natural causes). When it declines, there are more resources around for those that are left, which triggers growth, then resources constrain and it falls, and so on and so forth. The reason we had the renaissence is due to this fact. Bringing in a gorilion people from God knows where* to be used as cheap labour doesn't fix anything, it just furthers the resource restraint, which is why western economies are in the toilet.


*the point is not race

[plam]

Population decline isn't bad in most cases. Populations rise and fall almost cyclicly(when it is natural causes). When it declines, there are more resources around for those that are left, which triggers growth, then resources constrain and it falls, and so on and so forth. The reason we had the renaissence is due to this fact. Bringing in a gorilion people from God knows where* to be used as cheap labour doesn't fix anything, it just furthers the resource restraint, which is why western economies are in the toilet.


*the point is not race

Our growth-focussed economies don't do very well at all with lack of growth. Maybe that's a problem in itself. But population decline and population aging tends to lead to serious problems in our societies as they are currently set up. Find me a time in the last 200 years when Canada's population has declined, before this year.

[bravado]

Population decline isn't bad in most cases. Populations rise and fall almost cyclicly(when it is natural causes). When it declines, there are more resources around for those that are left, which triggers growth, then resources constrain and it falls, and so on and so forth. The reason we had the renaissence is due to this fact. Bringing in a gorilion people from God knows where* to be used as cheap labour doesn't fix anything, it just furthers the resource restraint, which is why western economies are in the toilet.


*the point is not race

Populations have not declined since we invented the welfare state in the 20th century... It is bad. And the declining birth rate is a global phenomenon that is not related to growth or current economic conditions. It won't rebound when things "get good again", it never has in any other society on earth with the same problem.

[danbrotherston]

Population decline is different from demographic shifts. (Related yes, but not the same). If a population declines slowly, then the demographics don't change all that much. But if demographics shift drastically it puts pressure on society the same as any rapid large scale change.

That said, our modern economy (forget welfare state, that's again a demographic issue) is based upon the flawed idea of infinite, exponential growth. If the population shrinks, that breaks the economy fundamentally.

And forget productivity...consumption also is expected to increase exponentially. And yeah, it's easier to for consumption to continue increase even in the face of a declining population, eventually you're going to struggle to convince every day people that a single person or couple without kids needs a fourth or fifth or sixth bathroom in their home.

[MidTowner]

Capitalism can probably cheat for a while in the face of worsening demographics and outright population decline. As an example, you can have household formation without population increase for a while through innovations like grey divorce. Demographics have been worsening in the West for decades, the question is how long it can keep this up.

Overall population decline and our worsening demographics are very bad things, and saying things like "when population declines, there are more resources around for those that are left" is ridiculous in today's context.

[danbrotherston]

Capitalism can probably cheat for a while in the face of worsening demographics and outright population decline. As an example, you can have household formation without population increase for a while through innovations like grey divorce. Demographics have been worsening in the West for decades, the question is how long it can keep this up.

Overall population decline and our worsening demographics are very bad things, and saying things like "when population declines, there are more resources around for those that are left" is ridiculous in today's context.

I strongly disagree that population decline of any kind is a "very bad thing". In fact, given the population on this planet, global population decline would probably be a good thing.

But it must be slow and consistent so as to not create demographic issues. And further, we need an economic system geared towards sustainability, rather than one predicated on infinite exponential growth.

[tomh009]

I strongly disagree that population decline of any kind is a "very bad thing". In fact, given the population on this planet, global population decline would probably be a good thing.

But it must be slow and consistent so as to not create demographic issues. And further, we need an economic system geared towards sustainability, rather than one predicated on infinite exponential growth.

A gradual decline can be fine, but given that the current declines can be quite rapid (see Korea, Japan, China for examples) they are intrinsically linked with demographics. And given that no one has found a silver bullet for increasing fertility rates, having (some) people migrate to different countries may be the only viable solution. The key is to do it in a manageable fashion, though.

P.S. A 1% annual growth rate is still exponential at 1.01^n, just not very fast.

[danbrotherston]

I strongly disagree that population decline of any kind is a "very bad thing". In fact, given the population on this planet, global population decline would probably be a good thing.

But it must be slow and consistent so as to not create demographic issues. And further, we need an economic system geared towards sustainability, rather than one predicated on infinite exponential growth.

A gradual decline can be fine, but given that the current declines can be quite rapid (see Korea, Japan, China for examples) they are intrinsically linked with demographics. And given that no one has found a silver bullet for increasing fertility rates, having (some) people migrate to different countries may be the only viable solution. The key is to do it in a manageable fashion, though.

P.S. A 1% annual growth rate is still exponential at 1.01^n, just not very fast. 

Oh I know...I do in fact have a Masters Degree in Mathematics  

I'd even go so far as to say EVERY population growth rate is exponential, even a flat one.

But I also thing that population is a fluctuating thing...growth rates go up and down according to many many factors, and I think "oh the growth rate is -5.0% today" does not mean "the future of the race is in threat" which some people seem to take it to be.

Yes, nobody has figured out a good way to control population rates, I believe there are a large number of related factors and different places have different issues (starting a family in Ontario is hard when you cannot house a family for example). One thing I think the Netherlands does well is making children visible in and part of society. This is primarily good for children, but it has the side effect of making them very visible to everyone, even young single , seeing kids makes people more likely to have kids (IMO).

Still, I am more concerned with demographic issues induced by sudden changes than I am with the actual direction of population.

[tomh009]

Enabling women to have children and still have careers tends to help somewhat, but it's a relatively small impact compared to the overall demographic changes in many advanced countries. Immigration tends to bring in more young people, and immigrants tend to have more children (on average) so it helps with the demographics. As long as you manage it ...

[Vojnik_Vahaj]

Enabling women to have children and still have careers tends to help somewhat, but it's a relatively small impact compared to the overall demographic changes in many advanced countries. Immigration tends to bring in more young people, and immigrants tend to have more children (on average) so it helps with the demographics. As long as you manage it ...

Ah, the immigration question. I’ll begin by stating something clearly: in most cases, I believe all people groups have a right to their own nation-state.
But this leads to a deeper problem with how some ideologies view people. Individuals are not interchangeable economic units that can be moved around without consequence. Nations did not emerge by accident, they formed among groups of people who shared language, culture, history, and often religion. These shared bonds created not just societies, but communities with continuity; ones that exist to preserve themselves and provide a better future for their own descendants.
To reduce people to purely economic roles is to ignore this reality.
Take a simple example: Rajesh, who works in a car factory in India, and Günther, who works in a car factory in Germany. An internationalist Marxist might argue that if they swapped places, nothing meaningful has changed, production continues, labour is still being performed, and the system functions as before.
But that claim falls apart the moment you look beyond economics.
Rajesh is no longer contributing to the development of his own society, just as Günther is no longer contributing to his. Their labour, skills, and long-term impact are now directed toward entirely different nations; nations with different cultures, histories, and futures. What may look identical in economic terms is fundamentally different in human terms.
Work is not just about output, it is about who benefits from that output.
When people are treated as interchangeable, what is lost is not efficiency, but identity, cohesion, and continuity. Nations weaken when the connection between a people and their future is broken, and no amount of economic abstraction can replace that.
In the end, the idea that people can simply be swapped without consequence only makes sense if you believe that culture, nationhood, and identity do not matter. But if they do, and history strongly suggests they do, then people are far more than units of labour.

This of course mostly applies to Europe and the Old World, but it does still hold some water in North America as well. I'm not entirely against immigration, but it has to be slow, controlled, and very strict

"have children and still have careers" That is another thing. The more stay at home mothers, the more employed men(generally, very simplified). That means more children who are getting full time nurturing from their mother(fathers obviously should contribute and help as much as possible), and more men who can earn enough to provide for his family. The whole "women in the work force and be boss bitches" thing contributed to the birthrate decline. Of course, if a woman wants to have a job, she should be free to do so, but she shouldn't WANT to, because the corporate world sucks ass.

[bravado]

What did I just read?

Canada very specifically is not a nation-state. It's a post-colonial settler state and it's fundamentally weird and very suspicious to talk about the things you just did. In no way could you consider Canada, at any point in its history, to have "formed among groups of people who shared language, culture, history, and often religion." This is a truly wild reinterpretation of history.

All the anxieties of today have been had before - with jews and irish and poles and italians and ukrainians and japanese and chinese, and yet here we are, more prosperous and still existing after each "evil outsider" moral panic.

I think the "New World" or the Anglosphere's entire appeal to international immigration is the fact that they really aren't nationstates and you can leave quite a lot of that cultural identity baggage at the door and start again. Or bring it with you, who cares - it doesn't matter anyways since your kids won't hold onto it.

[tomh009]

The more stay at home mothers, the more employed men(generally, very simplified).

So, how do you propose to convince women to stay at home and pop more babies instead of having careers?

You may wish to observe South Korea for the backlash that can instigate.

[plam]

The more stay at home mothers, the more employed men(generally, very simplified).

So, how do you propose to convince women to stay at home and pop more babies instead of having careers?

You may wish to observe South Korea for the backlash that can instigate.

Well said. 4Bs anyone?

[Kodra24]

Enabling women to have children and still have careers tends to help somewhat, but it's a relatively small impact compared to the overall demographic changes in many advanced countries. Immigration tends to bring in more young people, and immigrants tend to have more children (on average) so it helps with the demographics. As long as you manage it ...

Ah, the immigration question. I’ll begin by stating something clearly: in most cases, I believe all people groups have a right to their own nation-state.
But this leads to a deeper problem with how some ideologies view people. Individuals are not interchangeable economic units that can be moved around without consequence. Nations did not emerge by accident, they formed among groups of people who shared language, culture, history, and often religion. These shared bonds created not just societies, but communities with continuity; ones that exist to preserve themselves and provide a better future for their own descendants.
To reduce people to purely economic roles is to ignore this reality.
Take a simple example: Rajesh, who works in a car factory in India, and Günther, who works in a car factory in Germany. An internationalist Marxist might argue that if they swapped places, nothing meaningful has changed, production continues, labour is still being performed, and the system functions as before.
But that claim falls apart the moment you look beyond economics.
Rajesh is no longer contributing to the development of his own society, just as Günther is no longer contributing to his. Their labour, skills, and long-term impact are now directed toward entirely different nations; nations with different cultures, histories, and futures. What may look identical in economic terms is fundamentally different in human terms.
Work is not just about output, it is about who benefits from that output.
When people are treated as interchangeable, what is lost is not efficiency, but identity, cohesion, and continuity. Nations weaken when the connection between a people and their future is broken, and no amount of economic abstraction can replace that.
In the end, the idea that people can simply be swapped without consequence only makes sense if you believe that culture, nationhood, and identity do not matter. But if they do, and history strongly suggests they do, then people are far more than units of labour.

This of course mostly applies to Europe and the Old World, but it does still hold some water in North America as well. I'm not entirely against immigration, but it has to be slow, controlled, and very strict

"have children and still have careers" That is another thing. The more stay at home mothers, the more employed men(generally, very simplified). That means more children who are getting full time nurturing from their mother(fathers obviously should contribute and help as much as possible), and more men who can earn enough to provide for his family. The whole "women in the work force and be boss bitches" thing contributed to the birthrate decline. Of course, if a woman wants to have a job, she should be free to do so, but she shouldn't WANT to, because the corporate world sucks ass.

Well said, birds of the same feather flock together - it is difficult for some to accept this for some odd reason

[plam]

Well said, birds of the same feather flock together - it is difficult for some to accept this for some odd reason

Perhaps because the empirical fact is that lots of people would still like to move to Canada; and because Canada has benefited greatly from immigration; and here you are saying that this isn't the case.