[WestIndianArchie]

(10-28-2012 03:27 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-28-2012 05:18 AM)solo Wrote:  

In Sweden we have recieved people from South East Asia who come here to work as berry pickers during the summers for some years now, a job Swedes don't seem to want to do. It is a risky endeavor on their part since sometimes there have not been enough berries or they have been scammed, but a lot of the time amazingly they have been payed enough to cover the travel costs and return with more money than they would have had, had they stayed in SEA.

There are other jobs which don't require a long university education for someone to be productive at. For instance housekeeping etc.

Also, I think with the financial/economic crisis, the Welfare State will continue to be dismantled in the EU. Or what negative externalities are you talking about?

In your limited berry picker case, Sweden may well benefit, on net. But that's not the way immigration usually is. In America, for instance, you have poor Mexicans and Guatemalans coming and working low wage jobs. They have families, with above average fertility. Each child costs the educational system at least $10k a year, probably $15k a year. Then there are the added costs of healthcare, law enforcement, increase in land prices due to population increase... If it were just single, well-behaved adults coming and working, there might be a net benefit. But it isn't that way.

In a welfare state, below some level of income, people are a drain on the system, depending on the benefits they receive. It's not enough for immigrant labor to be cheap. But big business likes it because the costs are borne by the people, not by the corporation. Plus it grows the market for their goods.

Also, a lot of the times the cost of something, like produce, would only need to go up a couple percent to double the wages paid to labor. So having to pay higher wages to natives is not as challenging as it might seem.

It's not like the undocumented workers aren't putting more money into the economy

- they work, they do work @ below market rates -> lowers the cost of food and housing for everyone. (same way Chinese in China subsidize the American lifestyle, either via low pay, horrible conditions or environmental externalities)

- most use someone else's ssn - so that money goes to the fed/mica/soc sec

- they have to live someplace, eat, travel and consume themselves -> all of that gets translated as sales tax and property taxes.

If the argument is that they're leeches on society via the social network for citizens - that extends to all poor working people in this country.

The Chinatowns, Trailer Parks and Ghettoes of the USA have the same amount of social dysfunction (if not more), and drain those same resources of Health Care and Education.

And if you really think about the healthcare needs of this population, it's largely related to working dangerous jobs that Americans won't work.

America has always needed a low price labor force to work it's fields and factories but also to consume. Slavery, Indentured Servants, horrible conditions in factories in the cities... Right now this trend is moving towards the white collar sphere. the 1-2 punch of high education costs and low wage service sector jobs....

Arguably, if Rich Farmers in the Midwest didn't get welfare, i mean agricultural and ethanol subsidies in Corn, those farmers from Central Mexico would be able to sell their "underpriced" corn to the American market, and they'd stay at home and work their own fields.

I digress.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(10-27-2012 01:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

That's why wages have never risen. Women are perfect for super-rich capitalists: they spend more than they earn, they crowd out men (who demand more money usually) for jobs (with government support), their buying patterns are heavily influenced by (propaganda) commercials, and they will drag each other down before threatening the establishment (like crabs in a pot).

That being said, governmental and commercial failings is what caused this crisis. No restrictions against offshoring, too much importing, too little cultivation of domestic industry, too much spending on big companies and not enough on small business, inefficient regulation, corruption, etc. Feminism just threw gas on the fire.

We need to have a more self-sufficient domestic economy, and we need to have a more economically stable population. Whether it's through free market capitalism (not possible in practice, you can't compete with offshore labor wages, increases oil dependence), welfare capitalism (ideal but dying), or socialism (the future, since there's no alternative), we need a population that is a stable consumer base. Not rampantly spending, but stable.
Why we haven't seen some sort of New Deal work stimulus? It'd be better than just giving out unemployment or govt assistance. Hell, it's cheaper to pay someone a middle class wage than to incarcerate them.

[Hooligan Harry]

Feminism has been one of the most destructive forces on the global economy and it has suited no one but the very wealthy. It is killing the middle class, and all this bullshit about it being a major boost to the consumer economy is a complete misrepresentation of truth.

All the women who have joined the workforce have placed huge downward pressure on wages. While many leave in their early to mid 30's to raise kids, often after they realise how crap work is, by this time men have had to compete for positions for 10-15 years already. Its not a level playing field either, with women promoted as a result of quotas and progressive policy in many companies too. So the skills transfer and career progression for men is simply not there. Wages are crap, there are too many worker bees and no one is seeing the sort of skills transfer they should be.

Women dont start businesses of their own as often, and when they do it is rarely as an employer. When they do employ people, its normally low skilled positions that dont pay much. You are not going to see a woman create the next Google or Nokia, she is far more likely to start a small consultancy or open a retail outlet. This is the crux of the problem, because while women are quick to take jobs, they are slow in creating them, and all this does is reduce the value of the average wage earner to the point where jobs become scarce.

The cost of living has rocketed too as most homes have had to become dual income. With that the quality of life is suffering, as many people cannot afford to establish themselves on one wage anymore. So while people think that dual income is more disposable income, in reality all its led to is massive inflation.

Given the high rate of divorce and separation, and the higher living costs as a result of the inflation that came from their workforce participation, men are seeing their wealth decimated. Fewer men are able to establish businesses of their own because they are sitting with so much debt or they are paying ex wives support while they try and keep their heads above water.

It is absolutely killing the work environment too. Competitiveness is being killed off and with so much legislation being passed to protect women in the workplace, its getting soft. Here in Aus, we have legislation coming where workers can claim compensation for some of the most retarded shit. Being given too much work or not enough work.A boss rolling their eyes can be done for "workplace bullying". This is progressive feminisation of the workforce and economy now and its incredibly detrimental to the economy as a whole.

To make matters worse, we are seeing laws passed around the world which demand a set number of women in senior management or on the board. Even with so many leaving the workforce, and so many never going on to establish large companies employing people of its own, and so many men struggling with the high cost of living, the demand that senior management be an equitable split between the genders is so absurd its impossible to comprehend how anyone can agree that this is anything but detrimental.

The cherry on top has been the social impact. Men have no incentive to marry anymore or provide, so many could not give a fuck about work. Lets be honest, men work for a reason, not because they like to work, and unless the motivation is there they are not going to bother. Women not only have family laws in their favour, they are often earning more than men. With all the laws and policy in place to help them advance, they have a massive advantage earnings wise. The problem with that is that women never date down, and because there are so few men in their age group that can seriously show a major difference in earnings, her choices in partners is very limited.

The are political, social and economic structural problems now and as governments move further left and become more progressive as they try to legislate in corrective procedures, its only going to get worse.

As men you have very few options these days. Marriage is a gamble that can see you broken financially and living a life of servitude. Your entire future is placed into the hands of someone who makes life choices based predominantly on her emotions. If you are under the age of 35, career options are very limited unless you are in a highly technical profession. Chances are you are going to be struggling your ass off for most of your life and you are going to be changing jobs very often.

That middle class existence in the suburbs your parents wanted for you is only coming if you are earning way above average. Dont buy into this shit that they had it just as tough when they were your age, because they did not. Not even I had it this hard 16 years ago when I was starting out. Make no mistake, the baby boomers have fucked everyone. Between their social experiments and massive debt they have racked up, this is going to be a mess Gen Y and under will have to fix. Gen X has it a bit easier, although not by much, because most had to delay their lives and many are way behind the 8 ball.

I travel a lot of business, and I can say this. The west is fucked and is going to stagnate. The only industries that will do well will be resources and energy. Big finance too, and to a lesser degree technology. Medicine too as people age. Everything else though is going to decline and its being driven by a major shift left and women. That combined with the debt cliff we are quickly heading for is going to be cataclysmic in the next 15 years for the west.

- You need to become self sufficient and look to self employment.
- You need to learn how to move money around and structure finances, governments cannot be trusted anymore
- You need to learn other languages. Spanish, Mandarin or Russian at least
- You need to be looking at physical assets to store wealth. Property, commodities, etc.
- Businesses need to produce something tangible or produce annuity income streams. Stay the fuck away from services if its not annuity.
- Start looking at Asia and Latin America now
- Northern Europe, Australia and Canada will be OK for a very long time still. The USA, Western Europe and Southern Europe are on a knife edge.
- Africa will descend into chaos again once aid dries up.
- Trades. Mechanics, carpenters, etc

[solo]

^Well, Harry absolutely killed it with that post. It should be elevated to the Hall of Fame and put on Roosh's blog or something.

(10-28-2012 03:27 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-28-2012 05:18 AM)solo Wrote:  

In Sweden we have recieved people from South East Asia who come here to work as berry pickers during the summers for some years now, a job Swedes don't seem to want to do. It is a risky endeavor on their part since sometimes there have not been enough berries or they have been scammed, but a lot of the time amazingly they have been payed enough to cover the travel costs and return with more money than they would have had, had they stayed in SEA.

There are other jobs which don't require a long university education for someone to be productive at. For instance housekeeping etc.

Also, I think with the financial/economic crisis, the Welfare State will continue to be dismantled in the EU. Or what negative externalities are you talking about?

In your limited berry picker case, Sweden may well benefit, on net. But that's not the way immigration usually is. In America, for instance, you have poor Mexicans and Guatemalans coming and working low wage jobs. They have families, with above average fertility. Each child costs the educational system at least $10k a year, probably $15k a year. Then there are the added costs of healthcare, law enforcement, increase in land prices due to population increase... If it were just single, well-behaved adults coming and working, there might be a net benefit. But it isn't that way.

In a welfare state, below some level of income, people are a drain on the system, depending on the benefits they receive. It's not enough for immigrant labor to be cheap. But big business likes it because the costs are borne by the people, not by the corporation. Plus it grows the market for their goods.

Also, a lot of the times the cost of something, like produce, would only need to go up a couple percent to double the wages paid to labor. So having to pay higher wages to natives is not as challenging as it might seem.

Well in your example of Mexicans and Guatemalans you take a still snap shot from a short term perspective which serves your opinion. If a poor immigrant comes to the US with a family that needs education and health care, then yes, in most cases he will *initially* take out more out of the system than he puts in. Fast forward a generation though and he or one of his kids might have started a business that employs a lot of people, or have gotten more well-payed jobs and thus be able to contribute more through paying taxes.

However, for the sake of the argument I will assume that the net effect of immigrants in the US economy is negative, even in the long term. Then I would argue that it's due to the inability of the US system to provide opportunities, decent education, health care etc in order for the immigrants to integrate in the economy. This used to be what the US was so good at - though I think it is important to say, at the expense of Native and African Americans.

Also, the whole point of a Welfare system is that for various reasons not everyone can contribute as much. Of course I realise not everyone buy the argument of the veil of ignorance. And I also appreciate you're coming from an American perspective on modern day immigration, which I do not know so well since I'm arguing from a European perspective.

I think WIA made a lot of good points, expecially this one:

"Arguably, if Rich Farmers in the Midwest didn't get welfare, i mean agricultural and ethanol subsidies in Corn, those farmers from Central Mexico would be able to sell their "underpriced" corn to the American market, and they'd stay at home and work their own fields".

The West has fucked up the world economy through protectionism, feminism and the financial crisis. The least we can do is give the poorest people the chance to come here and earn money since the opportunity to stay at home and sell us their products has largely been taken away from them.

[solo]

(10-28-2012 07:27 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 01:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

That's why wages have never risen. Women are perfect for super-rich capitalists: they spend more than they earn, they crowd out men (who demand more money usually) for jobs (with government support), their buying patterns are heavily influenced by (propaganda) commercials, and they will drag each other down before threatening the establishment (like crabs in a pot).

That being said, governmental and commercial failings is what caused this crisis. No restrictions against offshoring, too much importing, too little cultivation of domestic industry, too much spending on big companies and not enough on small business, inefficient regulation, corruption, etc. Feminism just threw gas on the fire.

We need to have a more self-sufficient domestic economy, and we need to have a more economically stable population. Whether it's through free market capitalism (not possible in practice, you can't compete with offshore labor wages, increases oil dependence), welfare capitalism (ideal but dying), or socialism (the future, since there's no alternative), we need a population that is a stable consumer base. Not rampantly spending, but stable.
Why we haven't seen some sort of New Deal work stimulus? It'd be better than just giving out unemployment or govt assistance. Hell, it's cheaper to pay someone a middle class wage than to incarcerate them.

I agree with the argument that the super-rich and the big corporations benefit from feminism made in this thread and that this is a major driving force behind its promotion. And of course that women mostly have jobs like HR or law, which doesn't create wealth (but rather takes a way from it). No politician will ever make this point though so there will be some time before things can start to get better.

But self-sufficient economy? Self-sufficiency has seldom been good for any economy. Take a look at China before and after it started to open up in the late 70's. 660 million people out of poverty since 1981 - http://www.economist.com/node/21548963. Yes unfortunately they have followed the Western model for development which has caused a lot of environmental degradation but still, that is some feat.

[Deluge]

(10-28-2012 10:21 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

- Northern Europe, Australia and Canada will be OK for a very long time still. The USA, Western Europe and Southern Europe are on a knife edge.

Why do you think the social democratic western states are in better shape then rest? Is it because of sovereign debt, or something else?

[bacon]

hooligan harry needs to have his post put in a hall of fame. it was epic. that said americans are like anyone else as they are looking out for themselves. if illegals can enter the job market and lower wages can you blame them for wanting restrictions on illegal immigration? since republicans are possibly more pro corporations they will want the cheap labor. democrats are no better as they will use illegals just like they do black, gays, women since they represent disadvantaged groups and they want their illegal status to continue so they they count on their votes.

that said the documetary projects that things like social security and healthcare are growing expenses that will burden the young. maybe its just me because i am under 30 but i have no expectations of social security or health care in its current state when i reach senior age. it angers me when i see old people expecting their fair share to come from taxes the younger demographics.

is there money in the US? yes but to assume young workers should pay for retired citizens cushy medical and SS is unfair. if anyone is getting rich in this economy it is not young workers it is wallstreet.

I dont want to sound socialist because im a libertarian but wallstreet operates outside of the tax laws the average wage earner pays. I play the market but regular investors like me are different than hedge funds who play derivative speculation which by the way is 1.5 quadrillion. if we were to put a 1% tax on any financial turnover over a million dollars that would pay for all of the social welfare in the US. this would only be a problem for people and banks so rich that they are usually outside of the tax laws most americans find themselves in. sadly ideas like this are outside of the framework of our political dialogue.

if feminism can be blamed for anything to me its the conformist attitude associated with it. america has always been a nation very independent and one of free expression. to me the whole anti bullying and being sensitive to women has transformed america into a nation of sensitive betas unable to find direction as our priorities are being misguided.

to me there is ongoing cultural shift taking place in the US which is pro female at the expense of men. it is harder not to see it today than before as examples are easily found in media, corporations, government, and courts. feminism is not working out well but outside of outlets like this it is assumed things for society have improved with the changes associated with it.

[ElJefe]

(10-29-2012 05:37 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(10-28-2012 10:21 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

- Northern Europe, Australia and Canada will be OK for a very long time still. The USA, Western Europe and Southern Europe are on a knife edge.

Why do you think the social democratic western states are in better shape then rest? Is it because of sovereign debt, or something else?

Define better?

Norway has oil. That's the only reason that place isn't totally fucked.

Sweden is doing better, I happen to believe it's because they've been cutting their tax rates from approx 50 percent of GDP to now 44.5%. That unleashes a lot of potential and gives medium-term boost. However one in five children in Sweden today are of foreign descent, mostly Middle Easterne. I predict massive, massive problems down the road.

Denmark had windfall profits in 00's due to higher employment and oil money. They used that dough to pay down record levels of national debt. Now sovereign debt is rising. Household debt is at crushing levels. It's only low interest rates that keep everything from falling apart. The only place doing OK is the capital, but the standard of living is becoming increasingly pathetic. You just get so little value for money and quality is crappy. It's like DDR-lite.

Northern Europe should be a bastion of hope - if only for it's better demographic situation, but the reality is they're fucked too. It's only because Scandinavians society is so culturally superior in terms of work-ethic and trust levels they've been able to push it this far. It's going to be a long slow decline in DK and Sweden. Norway will continue to live in a fantasy world as they get rich on their oil, but once Sweden is fucked they'll start to clamor Norway for more.

My bets are on North America, actually.

[ElJefe]

edit

[Hooligan Harry]

(10-29-2012 05:37 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(10-28-2012 10:21 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

- Northern Europe, Australia and Canada will be OK for a very long time still. The USA, Western Europe and Southern Europe are on a knife edge.

Why do you think the social democratic western states are in better shape then rest? Is it because of sovereign debt, or something else?

No, despite the fact that they are very socialised democracies they are really just quite lucky. The difference is small populations with massive resources in the case of Canada and Northern Europe. In the case of Australia, it has those advantages and geographical advantages being so close to Asia too.

Socially they are just as fucked though IMO, but they wont see economic decline to the same degree as everyone else.

[Greek kamaki]

The reason that feminism harms economy is that it claims unfair compensations and positions for women based on gender and not on merit or performance.For the same reason affirmative action harms economy as well.
This is heavily disputed as to which extent it can be beneficial for economy by giving women a dream to pursue(possibility of career) thus boosting their performance.(which would not happen if they were hindered by the natural limitations of their gender in a non feminist environment).That is the question whether giving some women unfair priviledges can increase performance of the average of women as a whole.The same issue is valid with representation of women in political parties and high management.

In my opinion we have reached a high point of the positive effects of feminism,affirmative action and middle class nepotism and now it is the time for the tide.In reality it is a crisis caused by the passive resistance of all those who are damaged by affirmative actions,feminism and nepotism and create what we may call a black force.The black force creates a black hole in the economy dragging everything down and making estimations of future performance very difficult(thus the accumulation of debt the authorities can simply not calculate correctly the ability of future generations to repay the debt because the performance data have been deviated that is no longer mirror the actual development).

[kosko]

Nordic Countries did not get burnt because they are highly protectionist. They are in a closed loop market wise and project the closed loop outwards to the world. Also one positive element of their socialist tendencies is that housing did not ever become a commodity there as it was in the west and thus was not open to be raw dogged by speculators.

Yes the 1.5 Quadrillion number is bang on. People need to realize Wall Street and the Oligarchs are forcing nations to print money to try and fill that black hole of debt. There isn't even enough money to do. If you burned every barrel of oil in the ground you still would come up short. This is why I am balkish on the whole Hyperinflation argument, they are printing Billions up Billions per month and stocks and assets are still falling. The idea that you can hedge the amount of debt outside of the realm of real world wealth makes no sense. Global debt should equal Global GDP.

Canada though? We are going to get it the worst.

I am trying to get the hell out of here prior to this. We are bound to the hip of the USA. Are economically was forcibly intertwined LEGALLY into the USA economy in the 80's. We LEGALLY have to give certain rations of energy and goods to the USA. We would have energy shortages up here before America ever would. The more America slips down the sinkhole the harder it hits us since we are so dependent. Look at what Mexico is doing in contrast as they have woken up out of the coma and realize they are part of Central America and are trying to bridge more partnerships with South, Central America, and China. They can smell the stench coming from up north. Canada is trying to do the same but to little to late. We sat on our hands for 10 years not doing any major business with China or the other BRICS. And since are partnerships are deeper and more stringent then the ones America has with Mexico, we are literally handcuffed.

Our housing market right now is in worse shape numbers wise then the USA market. Per capita we have more personal debt too. We have tons of oil but it all has to go to America. What good is that if demand down their is leveled or stagnant.

[Greek kamaki]

Nordic countries can never fail because they adopt the Malthus law.Too little population for too much land rich in resources.Any other country having the population of Norway(4.5 million) and its natural reserves(oil) would do very good.The same is tru for a country having the population and wood of Finland or the population and iron of Sweden.Their natural resources guarantee their welfare apart from the other factors(lack of wars,good genetic features of the population,Scandinavians can simply stand hardships more than other folks due to body structure and have some of the highest IQs worldwide-reason for innovation in Nokia,Volvo etc).

[Way Cool Jr]

I believe that apart from USA, the nations that will have more problems are the ones in Western Europe that have high population and little natural resources.
I'm especially talking about UK, France and Italy that have each about 60 million people and a lack of resources and space (this happens to a lesser degree to France that has much more open space and land).
Taking Italy as an example I think that my country is overpopulated and there is too competition for every job, especially in this period of crisis.
The thing that worries me the most on an ecological and social degree is that population in the world is exploding at such a fast pace, we're 7 billions and counting, while the natural resources are declining...
While we in our Western societies have more and more older people, other nations especially in Asia are booming, also because the presence/lack of feminism.
I still don't know how we will manage to get out of this situation but the future seems gray for the majority of the population.

[bacon]

(10-29-2012 06:42 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  

I believe that apart from USA, the nations that will have more problems are the ones in Western Europe that have high population and little natural resources.
I'm especially talking about UK, France and Italy that have each about 60 million people and a lack of resources and space (this happens to a lesser degree to France that has much more open space and land).
Taking Italy as an example I think that my country is overpopulated and there is too competition for every job, especially in this period of crisis.
The thing that worries me the most on an ecological and social degree is that population in the world is exploding at such a fast pace, we're 7 billions and counting, while the natural resources are declining...
While we in our Western societies have more and more older people, other nations especially in Asia are booming, also because the presence/lack of feminism.
I still don't know how we will manage to get out of this situation but the future seems gray for the majority of the population.

way cool jr italy is a real interesting case study because the north of your country is per capita the richest in all of europe while the south is well more like spain or greece. what are your thoughts on the disparity between north and south in italy

[Way Cool Jr]

(10-29-2012 06:48 AM)bacon Wrote:  

way cool jr italy is a real interesting case study because the north of your country is per capita the richest in all of europe while the south is well more like spain or greece. what are your thoughts on the disparity between north and south in italy

Interesting question, however it's very hard to reply in a few sentences, today I don't have the time to analyze it in detail but I'll link you one academic paper that shows some of the historical reasons behind this disparity that exist since the early days of the formation of the modern Italian state, 1861.
If you have time you can have a quick look, in the past I found it an interesting read.

http://region-developpement.univ-tln.fr/...liardi.pdf

[ElJefe]

(10-29-2012 06:23 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Nordic Countries did not get burnt because they are highly protectionist. They are in a closed loop market wise and project the closed loop outwards to the world. Also one positive element of their socialist tendencies is that housing did not ever become a commodity there as it was in the west and thus was not open to be raw dogged by speculators.

Kosko, you write a lot of stuff and have a lot of conspiracy theories. I mostly don't have anything to say because frankly I have no idea.

But this is just absolute horse-shit. Lay off the kool-aid bro, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1. Nordic countries have huge export/import to GDP ratios. So you're inorrect.

2. Housing is a MAJOR commodity. Housing in Norway is a complete bubble. The bubble in DK burst in 2007. In Sweden the market in some cities like Stockholm is ridiculous. Wrong again.

3. If you ARE actually interested in real facts and some empirical evidence, I will point out the following I already mentioned as being critical:

Culture and trust-levels. Small ethnically homogeneous countries make for better trust climates and therefore lower transaction costs, encouraging "trade". This includes everything from the legal system to work-ethic - people honor oral agreements, businesses waste less time monitoring workers, and waste less time putting every damn thing in writing, the legal system is less burdened by fewer cases, and so on. It's a huge positive cycle based on centuries old cultural-traditions. Building a culture like that takes hundreds of years. And it's being washed down the drain as they import hundreds of thousands of folks from the Middle East who are notorious for their destructive and low trust-level behavior, again a product of THEIR culture.

For people interested in Italy, look up Robert Putnam - English social scientist, Italy (Making Democracy Work) was his case-study.

This relates very well to what I wrote above. Now, my friends... go forth and be enlightened.

[Samseau]

(10-29-2012 06:42 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  

I believe that apart from USA, the nations that will have more problems are the ones in Western Europe that have high population and little natural resources.
I'm especially talking about UK, France and Italy that have each about 60 million people and a lack of resources and space (this happens to a lesser degree to France that has much more open space and land).
Taking Italy as an example I think that my country is overpopulated and there is too competition for every job, especially in this period of crisis.
The thing that worries me the most on an ecological and social degree is that population in the world is exploding at such a fast pace, we're 7 billions and counting, while the natural resources are declining...
While we in our Western societies have more and more older people, other nations especially in Asia are booming, also because the presence/lack of feminism.
I still don't know how we will manage to get out of this situation but the future seems gray for the majority of the population.

Way Cool Jr epitomizes the kind of thinking the documentary was critical of (no offense).

Way Cool Jr thinks there are too many people in his country when in reality, everyone is getting older and dying off and the younger generation can't get a job because the older generation is retiring en mass.

This documentary provided so many good points (although I hate how melodramatic it is) and one myth is that, "Shouldn't population decline mean more jobs for the next generation?"

After all, it's less competition! Right?



WRONG. That's not how economies work. The more young people that are present, the more people are working and earning cash to spend! The more people are spending, the more job opportunities there are.

If everyone is getting old and retiring, that means less cash is being spent, which means there isn't a great a need for jobs to produce stuff.

Thus the countries with the worst demographics (Italy, Spain, Greece) are also the ones with the highest youth unemployment.

[Samseau]

What I took from this documentary is that Civilization is essentially one big ponzi scheme. The only way for economies to maintain continued growth is if their populations are constantly increasing in order to support the populations behind it.


There must be more people paying into the system than people paying out of it.


A lot of people here think that demographics aren't the issue, but instead...

- Immigration is taking our jobs!
- Big banks and corporations are to blame.
- Lack of natural resources.

But all of these issues, while bad in themselves, pale in comparison to the severity of demographic winter.



Immigration:

If we look at Japan, which as strict controls on immigration, we can see that their unemployment rate is a mere 4.2%, which is actually one of the highest unemployment rates it has ever had.

Thus it is easy to see that excessive immigration, legal or illegal, causes unemployment. Japan is also the perfect counter-argument to the claim that "Developed nations need cheap labor in order to survive", that's a bunch of bullshit.

In spite of this, and in spite of all the jobs going to native Japanese, Japan has the lowest fertility rate in the world. The country is quite literally dying.

If giving jobs to native Japanese is supposed to create wealth for men, then why are people so reluctant to create families?

Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world, a completely stagnated GDP growth, and the country is being bullied by China every day. Japan is a perfect example of why immigration isn't as a big a problem as some people seem to think it is.

Japan will be the first country to die in the coming worldwide economic crisis.


Big banks and corporations:

Although these guys are responsible for pushing a lot of the feminist agenda that results in depopulation, at the end of the day without the gullible voter there would be no way for them to single-handedly destroy an economy.

The sad truth is that most innovation today comes from these big corps, and the big banks that buy their stocks get all of their printed money from their local governments who sell them bonds.

Without these big corporations mass producing all of our stuff, we would be undoubtedly worse off, like a 3rd-world African nation.

And without big banks buying government debt, the welfare state would not exist and untold millions in first-world nations would starve.

Thus big banks and corporations are merely symptoms of a much larger disease.


Lack of natural resources:

Always a boogeyman, but just remember that resources are ultimately something that humans create, not find. Oil wasn't valuable until people discovered how to burn it in an engine. The problem isn't the lack of resources, it's the lack of inventions to create a better standard of living using other types of resources.





Ergo it all really boils down to depopulation and loss of traditional gender roles. When men were the only ones in the workforce, men were busy creating new inventions, thinking of new ways to overcome big banks and corporations, and start new businesses that created more jobs for other men.

But with women in the workforce and slutting it up every weekend, there really is no more incentive for men to do any of that, resulting in the death of the west.



This documentary does a good job of laying out the causes behind population decline, but it doesn't take follow the logic all the way.

If divorce, working women, and loose sexual mores are what is causing population decline, then it follows that populations will not increase until these causes are gone.

Hence:

Women need to be back at home, and by extension, should not be able to work or get an education.
Women shouldn't be able to vote.
Women shouldn't be able to divorce.
Both men and women should stop being fed bullshit that the world is overpopulated and we are reproducing too much.


And if these conditions aren't met, then our culture is dead. In less than 100 years from now the USA will be at half the population it currently is. The west will cease to make a global impact and we will be replaced by a country that understands the sexual nature of women.

[Way Cool Jr]

(10-29-2012 08:56 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Way Cool Jr epitomizes the kind of thinking the documentary was critical of (no offense).

Way Cool Jr thinks there are too many people in his country when in reality, everyone is getting older and dying off and the younger generation can't get a job because the older generation is retiring en mass.

This documentary provided so many good points (although I hate how melodramatic it is) and one myth is that, "Shouldn't population decline mean more jobs for the next generation?"

After all, it's less competition! Right?


WRONG. That's not how economies work. The more young people that are present, the more people are working and earning cash to spend! The more people are spending, the more job opportunities there are.

If everyone is getting old and retiring, that means less cash is being spent, which means there isn't a great a need for jobs to produce stuff.

Thus the countries with the worst demographics (Italy, Spain, Greece) are also the ones with the highest youth unemployment.

Actually you are right Samseau, I realize i wasn't perfectly correct in my post, maybe because this is not my first language.
I meant that in my country as well as other western european countries we have two, different, problems at the same time, making the demographic situation bad:

1) Decrease of the natality rate below the replacement level
(2.1 / 2.2 children per woman)
This is manly due to cultural causes, as feminism or the idea that woman can still have kids in their 40s or later like the Hollywood stars
This make the average population age higher, therefore more money have to be spent on health programs, assistance for senior citizens and retirement wages.

2) Overpopulation. This is a problem that only some countries of the world have to face.
It's not the case of USA, for example, or of Canada and Australia.
This is not a recent problem since I think the population of some countries is way above the perfect or desiderable level.
I think some countries have been overpopulated since a quite a long time, in some cases more than 50 years.
Some countries even with the decline of natality rates are going to be overpopulated for many decades, compared to the resources that their habit provides.
On a sider note, an interesting case is the one of the United Kingdom.
Many researchers believe that in the UK, where population is growing again, the habitat and living conditions will became much worse when the total amount of citizens will reach 70/75 millions.

I would like to know your opinion about this problem on a national level first and then, on a global scale, if you think that our planet can sustain such a rapid growth of the human presence.