Natalism: The New Hotness

There is nothing bad about going back to a sustainable population level. The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly. When elderly die that frees up resources for the next generation making it even easier.

The problem with declining population is the huge bubble pop you get when the population is mostly elderly people and few workers.
- Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.
  
  That's not a solution, that's just outsourcing the childbirth
  
  Immigration isn’t ‘outsourcing childbirth’, it’s investing in the future of our country. People who come here, build lives, and raise families contribute just as much to our communities as anyone born here. Their children are American in every meaningful way. That’s not a loophole, that’s the foundation of our nation. If we start drawing lines around who counts as a 'real' solution based on origin, we’re moving away from what has always made America strong.
  
  I think their point is that you then have to rely on other populations to breed workers for you which in the long term is not sustainable.
  I could be wrong though. I'm a soft anti-natalist myself, but I do think an aging population is going to cause problems.
  
  Immigration as a solution to population decline is absolutely outsourcing and pretty much cultural suicide.
  There are a lot of naive answers to this thread... Do people not realise that countries with higher birth rates are precisely the ones where people have the opposite worldview of secular, liberal low-birthrate countries? I don't know if I'm coming across xenophobic, it's just that I don't think people in the "first world" actually know how most "third worlders" actually are. You are not keeping, say, gay marriage rights unopposed for long if you're mass importing latin americans raised by devout evangelicals and muslim middle easterners. I see Germany and France already having some public demonstrations of muslim protest over progressive laws, for example.
  
  It’s not xenophobic to be concerned about cultural change, but it is misguided to assume that culture is a fixed object that only flows in one direction. America, and much of the West, has always been shaped by the beliefs, values, and adaptations of immigrants. People change, adapt, and contribute in complex ways. Immigrants don’t arrive with a USB stick labeled 'final values.' They raise kids here. Their kids go to school here. They vote here. And yes, they bring different perspectives, but so did Irish Catholics, Italian immigrants, and Vietnamese refugees. The melting pot doesn’t mean erasure, it means evolution."
  Also, beware of confusing correlation with cause: conservative religious values exist in all societies, not just 'third world' ones. We’ve got plenty of evangelical pushback on rights from people born and raised here too. If we’re going to have a conversation about values, let’s do it honestly and not use fear of ‘the other’ as a smokescreen for deeper social anxieties.
  
  I'm not "othering" developing countries, I'm just stating a fact that the culture over here in the third world is way more conservative.
  And the context now is not the same as the American immigration experience, and I wouldn't even necessarily say that it worked out well over there. It's cool to look at Irish and Italian immigrants right now, but then they were living in ghettos with raging criminality and the civil unrest caused by this ended up with e.g. the prohibition and Al Capone. These were the population bases that most resisted changes like implementation of divorce, abortion and gay marriage, as well.
  But then the culture wasn't even that different (protestant vs catholic), the american population wasn't in decline, etc. Now it's ultra developed, secular countries with an aging population, inviting immigrants from majority religious countries with thousand-year clashes with the local culture, to substitute their own working class. It's just a recipe for disaster, with "the poors" being people that look, speak and believe completely alien to the local richer class, it's really no wonder there is growing extremist sentiment in Europe
  
  You're right that immigration brings complexity, it always has. But what you’re describing isn’t a reason to reject immigration. It’s a reason to invest in integration, civic education, and community infrastructure, the very things that made past waves of immigration ultimately successful. The challenges Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants posed didn’t prove immigration was a failure, they proved that assimilation is a process, not a plug-and-play switch. And they eventually helped redefine the idea of who counts as “American.” That doesn’t mean there weren’t tensions, but it does mean people changed, adapted, and became part of the whole.
  What I hear in your argument is a belief that culture is static, and that outsiders are always permanent outsiders. That’s a dangerously pessimistic view of human beings. It treats people as incapable of growth, and societies as too fragile to absorb change. But that’s not how culture works, not unless you let fear do the steering.
  And yes, importing labor from poorer countries can create tension, especially if the host society is structured in a way that stratifies opportunity. But then the issue isn’t immigration, it’s inequality. The problem isn't that “the poors” look different. It’s that we’re failing to create systems where they can become something else.
  Extremist sentiment is rising in Europe not because immigrants are inherently dangerous, but because politicians and media figures are stoking fear and resentment instead of investing in cohesion. We've seen this movie before. It never ends well.
  
  Outsourcing is a solution.
  
  If the original goal (as stated) is maintaining sustainable population levels, not really, since that implies maintaining the same population level, just outsourcing part of the childbirth (and potentially raising and education)
  
  Maybe in the west. Not in places like South Korea or Japan. Even if you got the populations to buy in to immigration 100%, you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.
  English’s hegemony over the world makes immigration to non-English-speaking areas a huge problem. Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.
  
  I mean you're presupposing that it's important to convince immigrants to learn the language. Maybe multiculturualism is okay actually
  
  Learning the local language is a survival skill. It doesn’t require forgetting your first language nor does it mean the end of your culture.
  The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.
  
  The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.
  This implies that each of us is in charge of whether we are "second class" citizens or not. It's the people in power who control the social structure. They decide what "class" a person is. Immigrants are often attracted to their own communities not just for comfort and familiarity, but also for practical reasons. These communities step in where the government fails to. They help new arrivals find jobs, transport, and places to sleep/live. They enable people to have their basic needs met, in a country run by people who already think that poor immigrants aren't the same class/worthiness as they are.
  It doesn't have to be this way. If the people in power gave a shit about the rest of us, if they truly wanted immigrants to thrive, they would build a social structure that actually enables that. Immigrant groups don't inherently limit their own economic opportunities - those limits are created by those who treat them as "less".
  One last thing - to say that immigrants' "overall contribution to society" is "limited" by them being in their own communities, implies that any of the work done within those communities doesn't count as "contributing to society." It also implies that the jobs that are usually filled by immigrants, such as crop-picking and other agricultural work, are jobs that don't contribute enough to society. Yet I'd argue such people contribute more than many U.S.-born people I've met.
  
  You’ve made a very vague statement without any substance, sorry. “People in power” are not the reason a person who does not speak the language spoken in an office finds it difficult to get a job in that office. Language barriers make communication (and therefore collaboration) difficult or even impossible. It is no one’s fault that language barriers exist but immigrants without the necessary language skills are at a disadvantage.
  If there’s anyone to blame, it’s the people in power in the home country of the immigrants who created the conditions where immigration into such a disadvantaged situation is preferable to remaining at home.
  
  If your population is declining and immigrants aren't even learning the language, it's not "multiculturalism", it's just handing the country over to another culture. Taking into account that progressive values are correlated with lower birthrates, and "regressive" ones are related to higher birthrates, are you comfortable with the consequences of this transition?
  Are you sure that things like women's rights are going to stay the same in the long term by substituting the secular population with people raised with religious values associated with high birth rates, like indians, middle easterners, africans and so on? Are you sure material conditions will remain the same by substituting the working class with immigrants from countries with poor education systems, fresh off large scale political instability?
  
  you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.
  Do we? The languages aren't that hard, people learn languages all the time especially if they move.
  Just make it a requirement for citizenship, offer classes, etc. I'm picking up 2 languages right now, 1 for work and 1 for my new home in Europe. The human brain does things.
  Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.
  Ok, so I actually speak some french (from school), and that's not about it not being English, it's just that French is a shit language to push for no reason.
  Tell Quebec to switch to Spanish, everyone will be happier.
  
  Most people don't want to learn another language they want to do other stuff.
  Example: me, I want to do other stuff.
  
  They aren't exclusive.
  I learn languages without actualy putting in effort, just fucking expose yourself.
  Also, that's fucking rude, this is their country and their culture, you should respect them.
  
  I don't even respect my own culture.
  
  Mine's let me down a lot lately.
  But other cultures, I'm a guest.
  
  This is Asia we're talking about. The land of robots. They'll be fine.
  
  If you already know French, can you get an “in” immigration wise?
  
  Yeah but no more of an “in” than knowing English. Immigration policy is controlled by the federal government which only cares if you know one of the two official languages of the country (or not).
  
  Or robots.
- Korea used to have 2 workers and 10 dependents. Now its 2 workers and 7 dependents. There are literally more workers per dependent. There's no bubble that will pop.
  
  Where are your statistics? Do any cursory searching and you’ll find that South Korea is desperate for care workers. There’s a huge shortage.
  
  The 6 kids on average for South Korea in the 1950's was from the Kurzgesagt video originally posted.
  2 parents caring for 6 kids and 4 grandparents equals 10 dependents.
  2 parents caring for 4 grandparents and 1 kid equals 5 dependents.
  
  And then finally 1 kid caring for 2 parents and 4 grandparents. 1 worker and 6 dependents.
The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly
Holy [citation needed], Batman!
- Cost to raise 1 child is $350k including college.
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-240000/
  https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college
  Average nursing home cost is $120k/yr and people live on average 2 years in a nursing home.
  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2945440/
  2 parents working
  6 kids = $2.1m 4 grandparents = $960k
  
  So you're comparing the cost of 18 years' worth of child-rearing (or 22 years' worth including college) to an up-to-$120k per year cost of supporting an elderly person, and aren't even bothering to consider anything but the last two years?
  In what fantasy world is $15,900/year ($350k/22 years) somehow more than the annual cost of living for a senior citizen—even a healthy and independent one‽
  
  Until a senior citizen needs to have nursing home care, they are independent. In-home care is far cheaper. They don't need the costs of 6 hours a day of schooling which cost $15k per child in taxes to pay for the teachers and infrastructure. (That $15k/year isn't part of the $350k cost quoted earlier because it's covered by taxes.)
  https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics
  You aren't making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves. You aren't paying for day care- until it's nursing home or in home care time. In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.
  
  You aren't making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves.
  They still have to pay for it, though! Don't even try to tell me that an elderly person's regular living expenses — food, housing, utilities, etc. — averages out to less than $15,900/year.
  Are you just forgetting those exist? Are you trying to compare the total costs of raising a child, including all living expenses, to only the extra age-related costs of caring for an elderly person, not including living expenses? 'Cause it sure seems like that's what you're doing.
  In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.
  And if it's a multigenerational household where that's feasible on a daily basis because they live there, then they could even save on housing expenses too (maybe even brining down their living expenses to nearly equal to that of a child in the same household).
  But we're talking averages, and that's not the average — neither living together, nor providing regular day care. On average in the US, elderly people live separately from their grandkids and only see them occasionally.
  
  Don’t even try to tell me that an elderly person’s regular living expenses — food, housing, utilities, etc. — averages out to less than $15,900/year.
  That $15k/year is just for school. You think a child doesn't also need food/housing/utilities?
  
  The mean age of decedents was 83.3
  That mean they on average, were put into the nursing house at 81yo. Do you think people retire at 80yo or what?
  
  Until then they require less resources than a child. They don't need $15k a year in public resources for schooling.
True, but the lack of productive workers and the thinned tax base will crash the country while it all balances out. Only way to make a smooth transition is to slaughter the elderly, which is largely what will happen, just not on purpose.
- If 10 dependents per 2 workers (6 kids, 4 elderly) didn't crash the country in 1950, then having more workers per dependent in 2040 won't either.
  The only people who suffer from a population decline are the idle wealthy because their income comes from skimming profit from the workers.
  
  You keep bringing up the same point but do you plan on just letting seniors rot? We literally don't have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society. Demographic collapse is a real issue
  
  Seniors had care when there were less resources because families had 6 kids to raise. I showed that because children take up more resources than elderly that they not only wouldn't rot, but would have more care because the resources that went to children would go to them.
  We literally don’t have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society.
  Yet we can have the resources to raise kids that cost even more? That makes no sense.
  
  children take up more resources than elderly
  I can't begin to tackle that one. Jesus. You've certainly never had kids nor been old, I get that much.
  
  I do both. I have a mother in law in a retirement center. I have 2 kids.
  How many kids do you have?
  
  I literally mean there will be too many elderly for the slim workforce since many of these elderly won't have families to take care of them, y'know since nobody is having kids.
  Your whole point relies on the elderly getting home are from family like a child would, but the problem is that most won't have those families and there simply won't be enough healthcare workers to fill the gap.
  
  Seniors had care when there were less resources because families had 6 kids to raise.
  Historically, this was made possible by unpaid care labor performed primarily by women and children.
https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk
- The video ignores the other side of the economic cost: the number of workers needed to support raising a child.
  It costs more to raise a child than to care for elderly. Without child care costs there is a surplus to care for elderly.
  Claiming South Korea is doomed because right now population growth is .8x is as ridiculous as those claiming South Korea was doomed in 1950 because at 6x population growth, everyone would starve in 50 years. Populations grow and contract to match their environment.
  When the population has decreased to sustainable levels, individuals will have the free resources to raise children again.

Sounds like a job for immigration.

Ideally, sure. SK would have to change a lot for that to work, and that does not happen in a hurry. As far as the US is concerned, :gestures_widely:

I too subscribe to Kurzgesagt!

Europe is below 2 almost everywhere.