Jump to content

Immigration, baby boomers & 'making whoopie.'


Recommended Posts

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.

This number has nothing to do with cushy retirements. These numbers are the amounts that are due upon the social security and medicare programs in the US alone over the next 25 years. If you add in retirements that number grows considerably. I do not know how many people have 401(k) retirement plans in the US (the equivalent of our RRSPs) but if there are 70 million baby boomers and if even half of them have 401k plans and they were taking even $500 a month each out of their funds, that would be a monthly contraction of $17.5 Billion (or $210 Billion annually from the markets). Combine that with the aforementioned needs of the social security and medicare programs and no market in the world could withstand that kind of withdrawal and still grow. What's worse is that these programs were supposed to be funded, but they're bankrupt since president Clinton used the funds to "balance the budget." It's a time bomb.

Edited by dlkenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why? If technology can feed us and keep us warm in greater and greater numbers, why would Nature have to step in?

the problem is that regardless if technology can feed us and sustain us (which at present it cannot), what is obviously more important to sane people is having a pleasant world to live IN ... feeding the whole world and having western nations foot the bill to sustain the billions of mouths worldwide so they may perpetuate and accelerate their misery as they multiply like guinea pigs is clearly not the way to go.

What do you propose that we continue feeding the human offal of the world so they can continue multiplying until there is standing room alone in the world?

Quality is so often inimical to quantity.

Personally if I had to choose between a sustainable world of 1 or 2 billion humans, with plenty of space, plenty of resources and a human global plantation of 30 billion, where people are crowded together like animals in pens... i'd rather live in the DEPOPULATED world.

The obscene and insane left minded irreconcilables who usually write editorials filled with passionate yelps that the "rich nations" (that means us, suckers!) must reduce their own standard of living so that they can give trillions of dollars to the "poor nations" (which means billions of muslims, chinese, Africans, south americas... who aren't all that fond of us to begin with) to help them "save the planet" (by multiplying as like rabbits).

The main pollution from which the planet needs to be saved, the horrendous overpopulation by billions of vocal anthropoids.

Either way, having more people in the world will only increase competition for the world's dwindling resources... which will activate the territorial imperative that is inherent in every self respecting and sane population. The blind forces of biological evolution compel us to own land to be happy and survive. To live against the territorial imperative is to revolt against nature.

The laws of nature are absolute and from them there is no escape. They laws may be broken... but never with impunity. The ultimate and unavoidable penalty for all is death.

Edited by lictor616
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking doomsday. I like good news and I really hope that people can be smart enough to avoid the type of collapse I've talked about. I hate to break this to you though but the world does not have infinite resources. I think I read that the world could support 14 Billion people if we all lived as squatters. In theory too, under an ideological communism (I do not mean marxism, I must make this clear) where everyone contributed but only created what was needed it would do away with the need for constant growth. Under capitalism everything must grow and because of the nature of compound interest it grows exponentially, gradually increasing the rate of growth until the growth becomes unsustainable and collapes. We see it every 20 years in the real estate markets and every 10 years in the stock markets that capitalism works this way.

And ?

You did talk doomsday with this proclamation:

As the world population grows this problem will only grow.

The world population more than doubled from 1970 to 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones

And the percentage of hungry dropped by more than 50%.

As Globalization increases, population growth will decelerate at a more rapid rate.

Ideological communism would be a system of elected governance where no person owned anything, where the world itself was the society that owned everything. In this system, every person would be required to contribute in a way that they are capable in return for having their needs met. Some people argue that in general people would lead much better lives because the productivity would be shared amongst the people instead of being tied up in social stratification and large corporations. Nobody would go hungry, everyone could have an education, and there would be less environmental impact because there would be no concern for efficiency or productivity and production could be done in a more sensitive manner.

As communism died and its influence waned, economies improved and hunger continued to decline.

I must note that I'm not a devout socialist and I do not have any conceptions about changing the world. I simply try to look at the viablility of other systems. As things stand we are in a capitalist society and the markets and world conditions do correct themselves through natural ebbs and flows. For this reason I think that government meddling only postpones and makes the corrections worse than they need to be. If it weren't for Franklin Roosevelt reducing the money supply after the market crash in 1929 it's unlikely that the Great Depression would have been as bad as it was. Likewise, today with the governments printing so much money it's creating a disaster waiting to happen.

You seem to me to have conceptions about changing the world.

And it's all disaster disaster disaster. When the economy of 1929 crashes, mass starvation could result. When the economy of 2009 crashes... what happens ? People take fewer vacations ? They buy less video games ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get my information from YouTube by the way, I'm a professional money manager. I read money magazines and books on financial education and the fractional reserve system is used every time the bank issues a loan, a credit card or a mortgage.

All apologies sir, the comment was based upon what we typically see on internet forums, from conspiracy theories, zeitgeist and such. My brother was a commercial lending manager at HSBC, now doing securities & manulife, where I am still in school and learning much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must note that I'm not a devout socialist and I do not have any conceptions about changing the world. I simply try to look at the viablility of other systems. As things stand we are in a capitalist society and the markets and world conditions do correct themselves through natural ebbs and flows. For this reason I think that government meddling only postpones and makes the corrections worse than they need to be. If it weren't for Franklin Roosevelt reducing the money supply after the market crash in 1929 it's unlikely that the Great Depression would have been as bad as it was. Likewise, today with the governments printing so much money it's creating a disaster waiting to happen.

This was my fave of the year...

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/f.../12/213463.html

Video: Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion

The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know.

Worse, nobody at the Fed seems to have any idea what the losses on its $2 trillion portfolio really are.

"I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track of anything," Grayson says.

Grayson asked Coleman if her agency had done any research into the decision not to save Lehman Brothers, which “sent shockwaves through the entire financial system,” Coleman said it had not.

“What about the $1 trillion plus expansion of the Federal reserve’s balance sheet since last September?” Grayson asked.

“We have different connotations,” Coleman replied. “We’re actually conducting a fairly high-level review of the various lending facilities collectively.”

Translation: Nobody at the Fed knows where the money went.

Do you know what who got the $1 trillion or more in the Fed's expansion of its balance, Grayson pressed.

"I do not know. We have not looked at this specific area at the particular point on that specific review," Coleman answer.

What about the trillions of off-balance transactions since last September, Grayson asked.

Coleman demurred again, saying the IG does not have jurisdiction to audit the Federal Reserve.

Grayson pointed out that it was the inspector general's job to audit such spending and asked again if the office had done any investigation at all.

Coleman's answer: Not enough yet to even respond. "We are in not a position to say if there losses."

Grayson concluded, "I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve, including the inspector general, is keeping track of this."

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the bank is working on ways to rein in the massive balance sheet commitments.

"A majority of the members who made these projections just recently took 2 percent as being an appropriate number" for inflation, Bernanke said Monday.

"Somewhere between 1-1/2 to 2 percent is basically the number that our committee has individually stated is the appropriate medium-term inflation rate.

"To achieve that we need to demonstrate that we will be able to exit from the balance sheet position that we currently have, and have been working on this intensively," Bernanke said in response to questions after a speech to a conference organized by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, reported by Reuters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict it's only a matter of time before the entire continent of Africa as well as many Pacific Rim countries erupt into a permanent state of war. Might be a decade, might be a century, but it's coming. It's also going to be interesting to watch China as that massive population gradually increases it's standard of living, not to mention India's many times higher pop. growth rate.

China's population growth is slowing and has been since 1979, China's birth rate is 1.7 a birth rate of 2.1 is what is required to maintain a stable population...China's population is expected to grow until about 2030 and then begin to decline....the Chinese have understood for 30 yrs population has to be brought under control apparently many educated Canadians on this forum have not...Canada's birth rate is 1.5 our population only grows through immigration...without immigration our infinite growth economic model would have serious problems, something free market conservatives don't want to discuss....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from your link "We think we have found ice," that's a wee bit off from "substantial"don't you think?...if that's the best you can up with for proof I needn't look for anything better...

anything from this buck rogers stuff is so far off in the future to be of no help to humanity even if it were possible....

As for arable land, forgetting for the moment that we have HUGE amounts of farmland here in Canada lying fallow, since a farmer can't make a living from it, what about the tops of buildings? There are serious proposals in Toronto to set up rooftop garden industries to feed the city with local produce.

Of course, being Toronto they would likely screw up a good idea and end up starving to death. They'd have no guilt about it. They'd just blame cars! Mayor Miller doesn't seem to be a Popular Science subscriber either. Personally, I wouldn't trust him to replace a plug on a lamp cord. Still, if techies were allowed to do the job I've no doubt the idea is viable.

What do you imagine is the total rooftop surface area of highrise office and industrial buildings?

I'm all for roof top gardens...too bad the insurance industry has already shut that idea down...

but nothing posted here so far is going to feed trillions of people, that idea of feeding trillions isn't based in practical reality...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from your link "We think we have found ice," that's a wee bit off from "substantial"don't you think?...if that's the best you can up with for proof I needn't look for anything better...

anything from this buck rogers stuff is so far off in the future to be of no help to humanity even if it were possible....

I'm all for roof top gardens...too bad the insurance industry has already shut that idea down...

but nothing posted here so far is going to feed trillions of people, that idea of feeding trillions isn't based in practical reality...

That's your opinion and you have every right to hold it!

I happen to disagree. Unfortunately, at the rate we're going we'll both likely be dead before we see who is right and who is wrong. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely false, famine has INCREASED since the beginning of the cold war... and that everywhere in the world just sa the wealth gap has in parallel.

Lictor,

You see - I provided a link for my stat, whereas you just stated yours and put 'INCREASED' in caps to help your case.

It would be better if you had a link.

Do you have one ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ?

You did talk doomsday with this proclamation:

The world population more than doubled from 1970 to 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones

And the percentage of hungry dropped by more than 50%.

As Globalization increases, population growth will decelerate at a more rapid rate.

As communism died and its influence waned, economies improved and hunger continued to decline.

You seem to me to have conceptions about changing the world.

And it's all disaster disaster disaster. When the economy of 1929 crashes, mass starvation could result. When the economy of 2009 crashes... what happens ? People take fewer vacations ? They buy less video games ?

You're entitled to your opinion and though I do disagree, you do have some valid points. When I talk about communism, I'm not talking about communism as we've known it over the past 80 years but a new way of thinking that doesn't rely on unsustainable growth. In any case, I'm not a devout socialist and I have no intentions of trying to save the world I simply like to listen to alternate theories and try to educate people about what's actually happening, particularily in the world of money and finance because thats what I'm trained in. I only speak of ideological communism to create conversation about alternative social systems. In addition, I talk about doomsday scenarios because right now there are some runaway trains that people need to be aware of and by becoming aware perhaps there can be some changes made to our way of life to become more sustainable. Like another poster said, if we don't make the changes nature will do it for us. Its our choice.

I also am not suggesting that a collapse of our financial system would result in absolute catastrophe, in reality it could be just the correction that's needed (nature doing the work for us). Every great civilization comes and goes, it doesn't mean the end of the world or the end of all civilization but it does mean massive changes and I do think it's coming. Whether you think that's doomsday or not is up to you but the reality is that we're living in an age of geometric growth and geometric growth eventually gets corrected somehow. These things are already happening through famine, disease, war, terrorism, and poverty. Nature hates imbalances and these imbalances will be rebalanced eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dlkenny

You're entitled to your opinion and though I do disagree, you do have some valid points. When I talk about communism, I'm not talking about communism as we've known it over the past 80 years but a new way of thinking that doesn't rely on unsustainable growth. In any case, I'm not a devout socialist and I have no intentions of trying to save the world I simply like to listen to alternate theories and try to educate people about what's actually happening, particularily in the world of money and finance because thats what I'm trained in. I only speak of ideological communism to create conversation about alternative social systems. In addition, I talk about doomsday scenarios because right now there are some runaway trains that people need to be aware of and by becoming aware perhaps there can be some changes made to our way of life to become more sustainable. Like another poster said, if we don't make the changes nature will do it for us. Its our choice.

What are you talking about ? What runaway trains ?

Sure you're entitled to your opinion, but why would you stick to it in the face of the facts I've presented ? You appear to me to be irrationally pessimistic.

To recap - I just showed that as the population of the earth doubled, hunger fell. What makes you think that we're still bound towards catastrophe ? Perhaps this is a hunch you have or intuition - let me know...

I also am not suggesting that a collapse of our financial system would result in absolute catastrophe, in reality it could be just the correction that's needed (nature doing the work for us). Every great civilization comes and goes, it doesn't mean the end of the world or the end of all civilization but it does mean massive changes and I do think it's coming. Whether you think that's doomsday or not is up to you but the reality is that we're living in an age of geometric growth and geometric growth eventually gets corrected somehow. These things are already happening through famine, disease, war, terrorism, and poverty. Nature hates imbalances and these imbalances will be rebalanced eventually.

Corrections happen, and then progress continues and the forward march resumes. Your ideas that famine, disease, war are causing some kind of correction seem to me to be intuitive ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Chinese have understood for 30 yrs population has to be brought under control apparently many educated Canadians on this forum have not...Canada's birth rate is 1.5 our population only grows through immigration...without immigration our infinite growth economic model would have serious problems, something free market conservatives don't want to discuss....

I don't think infinite population growth is as important to sustain an economy as you seem to think. Canada was a reasonably nice place to live when it had 20 million people. Do you really think it's more pleasant at over 30 million, and will be more pleasant still when we reach 40 million? Ultimately, you need to have a stable population, not one which continues to expand. If the economic model requires ever larger numbers of people to sustain it then the economic model needs to be changed.

The way to address demographic problems is not through replacing the current population with one culled from a variety of third world countries, but by addressing the social and economic factors which depress native child birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus,

The way to address demographic problems is not through replacing the current population with one culled from a variety of third world countries, but by addressing the social and economic factors which depress native child birth.

I have seen this suggestion before.

Do you have a link explaining how this would work ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus,

I have seen this suggestion before.

Do you have a link explaining how this would work ?

The one sure way would be to make sex outside of marriage a crime, put a 1000% surcharge on birth control and give huge tax breaks for every child you have. That way, instead of spending your youth chasing girls, partying with girls and doing with girls (I'm speaking as a male) what come naturally with girls, you will get married as soon as possible, probably to the first girl who fancies you for more than your beautiful mind, and start having kids lickitysplit.

I guarantee the born in Canada population will rise.

I also wouldn't wish that on myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a perpetual topic yet I rarely see the 'real world' factors mentioned.

We have smaller families for a very simple reason, money! Or lack of, to be more specific. We've constructed an economy where both partners have to work to have sufficient family income to support a home and a couple of kids. Also, I can't speak for the rest of the country but here in Ontario jobs have been insecure for a couple of decades. Having both partners work is at least some insurance.

This also ties a family down. If Dad moves to the oil sands for a job should the family follow? After all, it would mean that Mom has to quit her job! Re-location becomes a bit more of a complicated issue.

I know there are those who say that Mom can stay home if you buy a cheap shack but that's just it, it will be a cheap shack and likely not in an area where you have the kind of schools you want for your kids.

If you have any more than a couple of kids the money runs out, especially with the cost of day care. Meanwhile, work is demanding extra time (usually for salary workers as unpaid overtime) while you are trying to drive your kids to soccer or karate classes. It's bad enough juggling everything with a small family. Up the number of kids and we might see a massive wave of nervous breakdowns!

If we want people to have more kids we have to change their economic situation so that they can afford and manage them. Anything else is just 'blarney talk'.

Edited by Wild Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one sure way would be to make sex outside of marriage a crime, put a 1000% surcharge on birth control and give huge tax breaks for every child you have. That way, instead of spending your youth chasing girls, partying with girls and doing with girls (I'm speaking as a male) what come naturally with girls, you will get married as soon as possible, probably to the first girl who fancies you for more than your beautiful mind, and start having kids lickitysplit.

I guarantee the born in Canada population will rise.

I also wouldn't wish that on myself.

Yeah.....and family court lawyer would be the new get rich quick scheme, beyond what it already is. Can you imagine the bureaucracy necessary to manage all those child support payments? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think infinite population growth is as important to sustain an economy as you seem to think. Canada was a reasonably nice place to live when it had 20 million people. Do you really think it's more pleasant at over 30 million, and will be more pleasant still when we reach 40 million? Ultimately, you need to have a stable population, not one which continues to expand. If the economic model requires ever larger numbers of people to sustain it then the economic model needs to be changed.

The way to address demographic problems is not through replacing the current population with one culled from a variety of third world countries, but by addressing the social and economic factors which depress native child birth.

indeed, any plan, any scheme which is based on an every increasing population in order to work, is fundamentally flawed and eventually will come to grief...

Its planned failure, and a rational society would aim to have a sustainable near zero growth population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a perpetual topic yet I rarely see the 'real world' factors mentioned.

We have smaller families for a very simple reason, money!

No, Bill, that's too simplistic. There've been studies, but really, you don't need to read them for you know this - the size of a family is rarely related to the size of that family's income. Find me a couple whose joint income is $70,000 and then one whose joint income is $250,000, and you're as likely to find both of them having 1 or 2 kids as anything else.

Do wealthier families have 4, 5 or 6 kids like people used to have? Absolutely not. Young men are spoiled today, but so are young women. Young women don't want to go through the pain and discomfort of repeated pregnancies and repeated child births. They don't want to have to be run ragged around the house by multiple pre-school children. They want to have careers, and then come home to relax and watch TV, or maybe go out dancing or to a pub.

I'm not saying money is not a factor for some people, but that's only a part of the story. We can improve the birth statistics through more support for young couples, most particularly for child care and subsidizing costs, but it would help to also have a cultural shift emphasizing the importance of children. Women used to think their importance as women lay in producing children. That was shallow, granted. But now all too many think their importance as women lies in their looks, and, to some extent, how much money they earn. Is that any less shallow?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying money is not a factor for some people, but that's only a part of the story. We can improve the birth statistics through more support for young couples, most particularly for child care, but we also need a cultural shift emphasizing the importance of children. Women used to think their importance as women lay in producing children. That was shallow, granted. But now all too many think their importance as women lies in their looks, and, to some extent, how much money they earn. Is that any less shallow?

Many European countries have great child care subsidies, but they also have lots of DIFs (dual-income families) and therefore low birth rates.

It's very difficult to have 2 spouses in the workforce and also have more than 1-2 kids. If you ever want higher birthrates, you have to make it possible for more families to have a spouse at home...at least until all the kids are in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lictor,

You see - I provided a link for my stat, whereas you just stated yours and put 'INCREASED' in caps to help your case.

It would be better if you had a link.

Do you have one ?

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/edi...vanderslice.htm

http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/wealth...llapse-us/24520

even here in canada the income gap: http://www.growinggap.ca/node/183

"Hunger In America Rises By 43 Percent Over Last Five Years"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51029093925.htm

There were 923 million hungry people in the world in 2007, an increase of 80 million since 1990.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0291e/i0291e00.htm

^ Food and Agriculture Organization Economic and Social Development Department. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2008 : High food prices and food security - threats and opportunities”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008, p. 2. “FAO’s most recent estimates put the number of hungry people at 923 million in 2007, an increase of more than 80 million since the 1990–92 base period.”.

also these hunger stats are misleading since since the 70's, the West has dumped TRILLIONS in financial aid to "underdeveloped countries" which actually artificially decreases the number of hungry... the number of dependent and unviable people in the world is doubtless MUCH higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are good links.

I concur that things have got worse lately, especially during the crisis - however looking over longer term (20-30 years) and beyond the current crisis, the situation has been steadily improving. I don't accept the idea that the 3rd world is much worse off (the number of dependent and unviable people in the world is doubtless MUCH higher).

China alone has moved hundreds of millions of people from the 3rd world into western economies since the 1960s.

Again, doomsday scenarios always exist but we should recognize that the difference between real problems and irrational fears and phobias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus,

I have seen this suggestion before.

Do you have a link explaining how this would work ?

France has apparently had some success in that regard with a determined mixture of incentives, guaranteed child care, and a sort of national propaganda effort emphasizing the importance of children and encouraging young women to become mothers, and repeat mothers.

France's high birth rate

Not mentioned in the article, except briefly, is the need to help women reconcile children with work. I think that all large work places should have child care right there on site so that mothers - and fathers - can visit their children during the day, and make it easier to both drop them off and pick them up at night. Government out to start with this as almost all government offices are fairly large, and have substantial numbers of parents with young kids.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...