Immigration, baby boomers & 'making whoopie.'

[Goat Boy©]

I find myself wondering these days, where we will be in 10 years. We're facing record immigration rates right now, and their are a lot of thoughts against this. However I see nothing but continuing reports, that it is expected as many as 30% of the workforce is expected to retire in the next decade, as the baby boomers call it quits.

Who is going to pay for all of this? CPP, EI, Universal Health Care......can these services survives this? I don't believe so, going from this entire population paying dues, to them all drawing benefits.

So who pays? The way I see it, their are two choices:

Immigration en masse that makes today look like a camp out, or state sponsored programs actively encouraging Canadians to have more kids. I believe that this will actually turn into a crisis, it's going to be interesting to see where we end up. Also, it will rather ironic watching the dogmatic anti-immigration crowd receiving services that wouldn't be possible, without immigrants.

Anybody have any thoughts? This is all theory, how wrong am I? Let's have the monkey wrenches in the wheels.

[Argus]

I find myself wondering these days, where we will be in 10 years. We're facing record immigration rates right now, and their are a lot of thoughts against this. However I see nothing but continuing reports, that it is expected as many as 30% of the workforce is expected to retire in the next decade, as the baby boomers call it quits.

I have seen no substantive demographic data which projects an overall shortage of workers.

So who pays? The way I see it, their are two choices:

Immigration en masse that makes today look like a camp out, or state sponsored programs actively encouraging Canadians to have more kids. I believe that this will actually turn into a crisis, it's going to be interesting to see where we end up. Also, it will rather ironic watching the dogmatic anti-immigration crowd receiving services that wouldn't be possible, without immigrants.

First, you have failed to show that there is a problem. Before we can decide on solutions, we need information about the problem.

As to immigration, let me enlighten you on a couple of things. First, the average age of immigrants is only about 2 years less than the average age of Canadians. So the suggestion made by many that an aging population needs immigrants is irrelevant. If the immigrants we took in were very young, perhaps - but they're not. So immigration is not going to be the solution to an aging population.

Second, demographic data shows that even if Canada cut back immigration to only 100k per year (currently it is about 230k) our population would continue to grow. If we halted ALL immigration entirely, then our population would ever so slowly begin to decline. How slowly? In thirty years, when all the boomers are dead, our population would be down by about 250k - about 0.6%. Big deal. That's with ZERO immigration.

Thirdly, the way we are bringing in immigrants nowadays, or perhaps the wide variance between our technological level and that the immigrants come from, has changed the economic facts of life. It used to be that immigrants came here and largely prospered, within 5 or 10 years earning more than native born Canadians. That is no longer the case. Growing numbers are barely getting buy in low income jobs, or worse, on welfare. People in low income jobs don't pay taxes. They consume resources, though.

I'm all for encouraging Canadians to have babies, though. Quebec is having a go at that, but we might study a few of the European countries which have been working at that longer.

[Goat Boy©]

I have seen no substantive demographic data which projects an overall shortage of workers.

Here is an example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/17/census-canada.html

The number of Canadians aged 55 to 64 — those most likely to be thinking about retirement — jumped by 28 per cent in the past five years to 3.7 million.

The sharp increase can be attributed to Canada's aging baby boomers, who account for close to one-third of the country's 32 million people.

Analysts say the shift will have great implications for the labour market, as employers, policy makers and regional planners struggle to deal with the changing workforce.

Lots and lots of reports such as this showing up.

First, you have failed to show that there is a problem. Before we can decide on solutions, we need information about the problem.

Addressed above. Not playing fear-mongering here, but it is going to be some type of problem.

As to immigration, let me enlighten you on a couple of things. First, the average age of immigrants is only about 2 years less than the average age of Canadians. So the suggestion made by many that an aging population needs immigrants is irrelevant. If the immigrants we took in were very young, perhaps - but they're not. So immigration is not going to be the solution to an aging population.

Not irrelevant at all. The standards that immigration are based on are not static. Just because this is the case now, does not mean that it will not be for the future.

Second, demographic data shows that even if Canada cut back immigration to only 100k per year (currently it is about 230k) our population would continue to grow. If we halted ALL immigration entirely, then our population would ever so slowly begin to decline. How slowly? In thirty years, when all the boomers are dead, our population would be down by about 250k - about 0.6%. Big deal. That's with ZERO immigration.

I quite agree, immigration is not required to sustain pop growth. And I am not trying to sell pro-immigration here as I believe you have inferred. I have no position on it, although I believe the system is being heavily abused at present. What I was saying is that the level of service we receive from the government of Canada needs to be paid for, and a lot of those that pay are going to disappear in the coming future, and even worse, start drawing on the contributions. Just how many, and what the impact will be is up for debate.

Thirdly, the way we are bringing in immigrants nowadays, or perhaps the wide variance between our technological level and that the immigrants come from, has changed the economic facts of life. It used to be that immigrants came here and largely prospered, within 5 or 10 years earning more than native born Canadians. That is no longer the case. Growing numbers are barely getting buy in low income jobs, or worse, on welfare. People in low income jobs don't pay taxes. They consume resources, though.

Again, you base the argument on current standards of immigration. Those standards are dynamic. I only offered immigration as one possible solution to a potential major problem, of which there don't appear to be many.

I'm all for encouraging Canadians to have babies, though. Quebec is having a go at that, but we might study a few of the European countries which have been working at that longer.

I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, domestically born children represent direct benefits to the country over immigration, on the other hand exponential population growth is a problem for the entire world. Something of a quagmire.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Argus]

Here is an example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/17/census-canada.html

Lots and lots of reports such as this showing up.

Yes, but while there are all sorts of implications for the future, esp related to health care, I haven't seen anything which directly states we will be short of x number of workers because of x. If you get my drift. It's true that retirement of a large body of people has economic consequences, especially for those who have not taken, or been unale to take the proper steps to ensure for their own economic well-being. Many will simply replace salary for savings, and pay their own way. Children will look after others, or help look after them.

Growing the economy to make it easier to look after them could be helpful, but we would need substantive changes to our current immigration system if we wanted to go that way with an eye to improving our economic fortunes. The Conservatives have made some noises about this but I have yet to see any reports of a substantial change in the economic quality of incoming immigrants.

Addressed above. Not playing fear-mongering here, but it is going to be some type of problem.

We've known this for some time. I've been reading those kinds of reports for at least a decade.

Isn't it great we have such insightful government looking well into the future to prepare for such things!?

I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, domestically born children represent direct benefits to the country over immigration, on the other hand exponential population growth is a problem for the entire world. Something of a quagmire.

Our population is going to grow to 41 million over the coming years due to immigration. I would rather our population grow due to the much more healthy method of having our own babies. At least our future would then be in our own hands.

[DogOnPorch]

Our population is going to grow to 41 million over the coming years due to immigration. I would rather our population grow due to the much more healthy method of having our own babies. At least our future would then be in our own hands.

Agreed. The twin realities of woman's sufferage and effective birth control keep the non-immigrant birth rate down...but, this is apparently a bad thing. So much time was spent promoting zero population growth back in the 1970s...and it worked, I guess.

[wyly]

Agreed. The twin realities of woman's sufferage and effective birth control keep the non-immigrant birth rate down...but, this is apparently a bad thing. So much time was spent promoting zero population growth back in the 1970s...and it worked, I guess.

here's the problem, our economy along with most western economies are built on continous growth, the problem with that is the planet has finite resources so sooner or later it must stop...Japan has has almost reached ZPG and it's created serious problems for their economy and government...there needs to be a transition period from continuous growth to ZPG but's difficult and one that politicians will avoid, for Canada with our demographic bulge of boomers we use immigartion as band aid solution to delay the coming problems...

[Molly]

...which is to say that the problem is the structure of our economy, not our birthrate.

[dlkenny]

I was actually reading about this same thing a couple of weeks ago and the whole baby boomer issue isn't as big as the media would have us believe. I was reading about demographics and the echo generation who are now in college, there are 60 million of them in the US today. Essentially they are a second wave baby boom, though slightly smaller but nonetheless they have the ability to fill the talent gaps created by baby boomers exiting the workforce.

I definitely agree though that the programs the boomers created to support themselves in their old age and retirement will likely bankrupt the world. In fact I found an article that suggests that in the United States alone that old age security and medicare will cost $75 Trillion to support the boomers. If this number is correct, that's more money than is available in all the stock markets worldwide. Essentially it would mean a full scale collapse of the world financial system. The situation isn't any better in Canada. The CPP program has been grossly underfunded and raided by greedy politicians to fund other programs, the EI program has been badly managed as the premium money has gone into general revenue for many years, and our own medicare program is shaky at best.

I do not know what is going to happen but rapid inflation I think is the order of the day. If one just looks at the value of gold these days it's apparent that inflation is rampant. The governments of the world have printed trillions of dollars with no additonal assets to back them (essentially government issued IOUs) and so it's not the value of gold going up but the erosion of the purchasing power of our money. At some point somebody has to pay back all that debt. (by the way, it's my opinion that a smart person should be buying gold stocks in abundance, for its the only asset whose real value would survive a full scale economic collapse.) It appears to me that with the current economic crisis has been temporarily staved off by governments printing money, that there are a few more years of prosperity. I believe however that it's only temporary and that they've simply postponed the meltdown.

The sad situation is that life is becoming more and more expensive for the current generation as inflation continues to accelerate but salaries as a rule aren't increasing anywhere near the rate of inflation. To make the situation worse, increased taxes are the only means the government has to pay for whats owing. At some point the economy will implode when taxes and inflation eat up too much of workers' salaries and there's not enough money. It's a grim prospect but it's what I personally see for the future. I think we're in for another great depression, probably in the not so distant future.

[Argus]

...which is to say that the problem is the structure of our economy, not our birthrate.

No, I think you can reasonably state that a society's birth rate being BELOW replacement numbers is a problem in that it will ultimately result in the end of that society.

[DogOnPorch]

I was actually reading about this same thing a couple of weeks ago and the whole baby boomer issue isn't as big as the media would have us believe. I was reading about demographics and the echo generation who are now in college, there are 60 million of them in the US today. Essentially they are a second wave baby boom, though slightly smaller but nonetheless they have the ability to fill the talent gaps created by baby boomers exiting the workforce.

I definitely agree though that the programs the boomers created to support themselves in their old age and retirement will likely bankrupt the world. In fact I found an article that suggests that in the United States alone that old age security and medicare will cost $75 Trillion to support the boomers. If this number is correct, that's more money than is available in all the stock markets worldwide. Essentially it would mean a full scale collapse of the world financial system. The situation isn't any better in Canada. The CPP program has been grossly underfunded and raided by greedy politicians to fund other programs, the EI program has been badly managed as the premium money has gone into general revenue for many years, and our own medicare program is shaky at best.

I do not know what is going to happen but rapid inflation I think is the order of the day. If one just looks at the value of gold these days it's apparent that inflation is rampant. The governments of the world have printed trillions of dollars with no additonal assets to back them (essentially government issued IOUs) and so it's not the value of gold going up but the erosion of the purchasing power of our money. At some point somebody has to pay back all that debt. (by the way, it's my opinion that a smart person should be buying gold stocks in abundance, for its the only asset whose real value would survive a full scale economic collapse.) It appears to me that with the current economic crisis has been temporarily staved off by governments printing money, that there are a few more years of prosperity. I believe however that it's only temporary and that they've simply postponed the meltdown.

The sad situation is that life is becoming more and more expensive for the current generation as inflation continues to accelerate but salaries as a rule aren't increasing anywhere near the rate of inflation. To make the situation worse, increased taxes are the only means the government has to pay for whats owing. At some point the economy will implode when taxes and inflation eat up too much of workers' salaries and there's not enough money. It's a grim prospect but it's what I personally see for the future. I think we're in for another great depression, probably in the not so distant future.

I like your style. Good post. Please contribute more.

[Wild Bill]

here's the problem, our economy along with most western economies are built on continous growth, the problem with that is the planet has finite resources so sooner or later it must stop...Japan has has almost reached ZPG and it's created serious problems for their economy and government...there needs to be a transition period from continuous growth to ZPG but's difficult and one that politicians will avoid, for Canada with our demographic bulge of boomers we use immigartion as band aid solution to delay the coming problems...

"The planet has finite resources"? So? The Universe has INFINITE resources!

We are so close to being able to mine asteroids and the moon. Science tells us that some of the moons of Jupiter have literally oceans of liguid gases like methane and other fuels. One typical average sized asteroid is also typically made of high grade nickel iron ore. It can be smelted with free solar energy in space and dropped to earth by the free force of gravity and the aim of ballistics. It would be able to supply the ENTIRE WORLD'S NEEDS for steel for at least one year!

This can be done with the technology we have NOW! Any new development would only be a bonus.

Most countries already know this. From the looks of things today it's more likely to be China or India who develops space industry than America.

It's just a question of where we want to invest our money. The average joe has a completely wrong idea about the cost of "all them space shots". The entire Apollo program that put Man on the Moon cost about as much as the helicopter losses FOR ONE MONTH at the height of the Viet Nam war!

"Yep, stay up here in the trees with us old folks, Junior Kong! There's probably snakes down in that grass! Who'd want to bother exploring anyway? Don't listen to that Darwin fellow! There's nothing for us apes down there!"

Edited September 14, 2009 by Wild Bill

[wyly]

"The planet has finite resources"? So? The Universe has INFINITE resources!

We are so close to being able to mine asteroids and the moon. Science tells us that some of the moons of Jupiter have literally oceans of liguid gases like methane and other fuels. One typical average sized asteroid is also typically made of high grade nickel iron ore. It can be smelted with free solar energy in space and dropped to earth by the free force of gravity and the aim of ballistics. It would be able to supply the ENTIRE WORLD'S NEEDS for steel for at least one year!

This can be done with the technology we have NOW! Any new development would only be a bonus.

Most countries already know this. From the looks of things today it's more likely to be China or India who develops space industry than America.

It's just a question of where we want to invest our money. The average joe has a completely wrong idea about the cost of "all them space shots". The entire Apollo program that put Man on the Moon cost about as much as the helicopter losses FOR ONE MONTH at the height of the Viet Nam war!

"Yep, stay up here in the trees with us old folks, Junior Kong! There's probably snakes down in that grass! Who'd want to bother exploring anyway? Don't listen to that Darwin fellow! There's nothing for us apes down there!"

the steel industry is barely profitable now and you want to increase the cost of production a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times by going into space to retrieve it??

let me know when they find fossil fuels on Jupiters moons , or when we go fishing on Venus , or farming on Mars....science fiction is not reality....

[Michael Hardner]

A few points:

In thirty years, when all the boomers are dead, our population would be down by about 250k - about 0.6%. Big deal. That's with ZERO immigration.

I'd like to point out that the population grew about 50% from 1978 to today. That is a big deal.

The sad situation is that life is becoming more and more expensive for the current generation

Up until the 1950s people spent 25% of their incomes on food. Now it's 10%. Life is very cheap today compared to the past, however people want more and more.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=171196

here's the problem, our economy along with most western economies are built on continous growth, the problem with that is the planet has finite resources so sooner or later it must stop...

Economic growth and finite resources are two different things. The economy will grow even as resources are depleted.

[eyeball]

The entire Apollo program that put Man on the Moon cost about as much as the helicopter losses FOR ONE MONTH at the height of the Viet Nam war!

Really? That's ridiculous.

Its just too bad al Queda isn't based on Pluto, we'd waste little time developing a real space faring capacity if they were.

[eyeball]

The economy will grow even as resources are depleted.

Maybe by switching to other resources in the short term but grow forever in the face of unrelenting depletion of all of them? How?

[Michael Hardner]

As prices of resources rise, other options will become more economical. And... nothing is forever.

[Goat Boy©]

I was actually reading about this same thing a couple of weeks ago and the whole baby boomer issue isn't as big as the media would have us believe. I was reading about demographics and the echo generation who are now in college, there are 60 million of them in the US today. Essentially they are a second wave baby boom, though slightly smaller but nonetheless they have the ability to fill the talent gaps created by baby boomers exiting the workforce.

I definitely agree though that the programs the boomers created to support themselves in their old age and retirement will likely bankrupt the world. In fact I found an article that suggests that in the United States alone that old age security and medicare will cost $75 Trillion to support the boomers. If this number is correct, that's more money than is available in all the stock markets worldwide. Essentially it would mean a full scale collapse of the world financial system. The situation isn't any better in Canada. The CPP program has been grossly underfunded and raided by greedy politicians to fund other programs, the EI program has been badly managed as the premium money has gone into general revenue for many years, and our own medicare program is shaky at best.

I do not know what is going to happen but rapid inflation I think is the order of the day. If one just looks at the value of gold these days it's apparent that inflation is rampant. The governments of the world have printed trillions of dollars with no additonal assets to back them (essentially government issued IOUs) and so it's not the value of gold going up but the erosion of the purchasing power of our money. At some point somebody has to pay back all that debt. (by the way, it's my opinion that a smart person should be buying gold stocks in abundance, for its the only asset whose real value would survive a full scale economic collapse.) It appears to me that with the current economic crisis has been temporarily staved off by governments printing money, that there are a few more years of prosperity. I believe however that it's only temporary and that they've simply postponed the meltdown.

Great post. The 75 Trillion figure is frightening.

I think this may destroy Obama and his health care in the history books, if he ever manages to get it through.

The sad situation is that life is becoming more and more expensive for the current generation as inflation continues to accelerate but salaries as a rule aren't increasing anywhere near the rate of inflation. To make the situation worse, increased taxes are the only means the government has to pay for whats owing. At some point the economy will implode when taxes and inflation eat up too much of workers' salaries and there's not enough money. It's a grim prospect but it's what I personally see for the future. I think we're in for another great depression, probably in the not so distant future.

Collective action problem. For a firm to survive, they need to reduce the manufacturing and thus sale price of products. In doing so they end up reducing wages in the employees pockets, and thus, purchasing power even further. Combined with the fact that most of the population wastes large portions of their disposable income on useless crap, like replacing the Iphone every year with the new model.......well if things really do get tough, and the market for knick knacks & trinkets dries up, how many more out of work??

I personally think that credit may well be the worst evil that man has ever constructed.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Topaz]

Well, look at it this way, IF you create a virus, say like the swine flu and reduce the population then maybe you can get control over the social programs. Now you know and I know that would never happen and those planes never flew into those buildings.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I definitely agree though that the programs the boomers created to support themselves in their old age and retirement will likely bankrupt the world. In fact I found an article that suggests that in the United States alone that old age security and medicare will cost $75 Trillion to support the boomers. If this number is correct, that's more money than is available in all the stock markets worldwide. Essentially it would mean a full scale collapse of the world financial system.....

I think this is a very narrow interpretation of the future, as the majority citizens in the world have never had such high expectations for such a cushy "retirement". These are largely entitlement programs that are easy come...easy go. Focusing on the United States' future, unfunded obligations presumes that current benefit levels will be maintained.

[Molly]

No, I think you can reasonably state that a society's birth rate being BELOW replacement numbers is a problem in that it will ultimately result in the end of that society.

Birthrate isn't static (obviously, so an end of society scenario is ad absurdum), and a population downtrend is only bad if you percieve present numbers, or more, to be some sort of optimum. The opposite rediculous extreme is Soylent Green, and sea to sea suburb.

On a planetary basis, I figure we've got at least double the sustainable human population... which makes declining population a good thing.

[Wild Bill]

the steel industry is barely profitable now and you want to increase the cost of production a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times by going into space to retrieve it??

let me know when they find fossil fuels on Jupiters moons , or when we go fishing on Venus , or farming on Mars....science fiction is not reality....

What do you mean by "cost of production"? If you mean the investment of infrastructure to accomplish the task that is, by definition, an investment. That is what you do when you build a new steel plant anyways.

What is important is how much it actually costs to produce the steel and the price you can get for it. The difference is your profit!

This has been all worked out since the 1980's, by engineers far smarter than you or I. You might do a quick google. Check out a guy named G. Harry Stine. Although most folks may not have heard about it, it's actually kinda old news. The obstacles are mostly political, not economic or technical.

The investment costs are admittedly very high, at least to start. The actual cost of production is lower than we way we're doing it now. In the vacuum and zero G of space you can easily blow up a BIG glass bubble while the glass is still molten, to make a giant ball. Then you release some mercury vapour inside of it to coat the glass like a mirror. You cut the ball in half and you have two giant focusing mirrors! Not the most efficient parabola to make a solar thermal heater but it WILL work and it is CHEAP!

So your energy costs to make the steel are "mice nuts". The asteroid of ore had a cost to retrieve it but not as much as you would think. Moving an asteroid quickly costs a great deal of money. You have to use rockets far more powerful than we have today. However, you can nudge it slowly with a mass driver or an ion rocket far more cheaply and easily. It might take a year for the asteroid to be retrieved to a near-Earth orbit but who cares? There's lots of other stuff to do while we're waiting!

Dropping it down to earth is the easiest part of all. Gravity does it for free! A medieval 'gunner' with a catapult knew enough to aim a dead cow at a castle wall. The ballistics of dropping a big slug of steel weighing a few tons to a "plop down' in the ocean near your coast is not much more complicated.

As for profit, the first company to do this will be able to undercut ANY price and be rich as Midas! We're talking ZILLIONS of dollars profit at normal world prices!

When we have to, we will do it. We'll also go out and get any other resource we need. As I said, the universe is infinite.

The only question is whether it will be us or some other country that does it.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

Birthrate isn't static (obviously, so an end of society scenario is ad absurdum), and a population downtrend is only bad if you percieve present numbers, or more, to be some sort of optimum. The opposite rediculous extreme is Soylent Green, and sea to sea suburb.

On a planetary basis, I figure we've got at least double the sustainable human population... which makes declining population a good thing.

The birth rate might not be static but it has been an observable trend for some decades now with no likelihood of a change in the foreseeable future. Nor is the world helped any by people in the more civilized, technologically and socially advanced states dissapearing while the people in the third world pest holes of violence, ignorance and brutality continue to grow in numbers..

[Oleg Bach]

The birth rate might not be static but it has been an observable trend for some decades now with no likelihood of a change in the foreseeable future. Nor is the world helped any by people in the more civilized, technologically and socially advanced states dissapearing while the people in the third world pest holes of violence, ignorance and brutality continue to grow in numbers..

Yah and instead of men doing their duty - we gayify some - de-ball others and teach woman to distrust the opposite sex - and treat recreational sex as normal fare while creational sex is frowned upon. Look at the attitude towards that dead bike courier that met his end hanging on to the side of a former attorney generals car...They black balled the deceased in the media...one of the horrible things they said about him was that the young man HAD FOUR CHILDREN ....As if this was some sin against modernity. Small wonder we are being outbred by the immigrants ..we hate manhood.

[wyly]

What do you mean by "cost of production"? If you mean the investment of infrastructure to accomplish the task that is, by definition, an investment. That is what you do when you build a new steel plant anyways.

What is important is how much it actually costs to produce the steel and the price you can get for it. The difference is your profit!

This has been all worked out since the 1980's, by engineers far smarter than you or I. You might do a quick google. Check out a guy named G. Harry Stine. Although most folks may not have heard about it, it's actually kinda old news. The obstacles are mostly political, not economic or technical.

The investment costs are admittedly very high, at least to start. The actual cost of production is lower than we way we're doing it now. In the vacuum and zero G of space you can easily blow up a BIG glass bubble while the glass is still molten, to make a giant ball. Then you release some mercury vapour inside of it to coat the glass like a mirror. You cut the ball in half and you have two giant focusing mirrors! Not the most efficient parabola to make a solar thermal heater but it WILL work and it is CHEAP!

So your energy costs to make the steel are "mice nuts". The asteroid of ore had a cost to retrieve it but not as much as you would think. Moving an asteroid quickly costs a great deal of money. You have to use rockets far more powerful than we have today. However, you can nudge it slowly with a mass driver or an ion rocket far more cheaply and easily. It might take a year for the asteroid to be retrieved to a near-Earth orbit but who cares? There's lots of other stuff to do while we're waiting!

Dropping it down to earth is the easiest part of all. Gravity does it for free! A medieval 'gunner' with a catapult knew enough to aim a dead cow at a castle wall. The ballistics of dropping a big slug of steel weighing a few tons to a "plop down' in the ocean near your coast is not much more complicated.

As for profit, the first company to do this will be able to undercut ANY price and be rich as Midas! We're talking ZILLIONS of dollars profit at normal world prices!

When we have to, we will do it. We'll also go out and get any other resource we need. As I said, the universe is infinite.

The only question is whether it will be us or some other country that does it.

the ability to send men to Mars isn't even in place you have mining in deep space as an everyday financially feasible solution to food and fuel shortages...you're not looking at this realistically,

[Bonam]

here's the problem, our economy along with most western economies are built on continous growth, the problem with that is the planet has finite resources so sooner or later it must stop

A false statement. The finite resources of our planet do not in any way prohibit continued population growth. For one, we can still produce and utilize thousands of times more energy on this planet than we currently do, and this will become possible as our technology continues to progress. That means centuries more of exponential growth can be sustained on Earth, which could be made to house trillions of humans. And secondly, there is nothing stopping us from expanding our civilization to other planets in the future, just as earlier generations of mankind expanded their civilizations from tiny European nations to cover the whole of the Earth. The voyage from Europe to the Americas in the 15th century was longer than the voyage today from Earth to Mars could be. The economic viability is not there yet, but it will be, especially if populations continue to grow.