Mass immigration is a disaster

aban57 · **#21** by **aban57** » Dec 02, 2019 11:51 am

Hermit wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Bloody Beaker folk. Coming over here, rowing up the Tagus Estuary from the Iberian Peninsula in improvised rafts. Coming here with their drinking vessels. What's wrong with just cupping up the water in your hands and licking it up like a cat?

Good one.

Video unavailable
This video contains content from BBC Studios, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

That's racism!

Yeah. Right. Geoblocking is motivated by racism. The clip is blocked here in Australia too, but VPNs beat geoblocks.

Hermit, you really need to work on your sarcasm meter.

Hermit · **#22** by **Hermit** » Dec 02, 2019 12:04 pm

aban57 wrote:Hermit, you really need to work on your sarcasm meter.

You need to look up the meaning of sarcasm. Also, to develop an ability to detect humour delivered with a deadpan expression. NineBerry did the latter. I responded likewise.

aban57 · **#23** by **aban57** » Dec 02, 2019 12:41 pm

Hermit wrote:
aban57 wrote:Hermit, you really need to work on your sarcasm meter.

You need to look up the meaning of sarcasm. Also, to develop an ability to detect humour delivered with a deadpan expression. NineBerry did the latter. I responded likewise.

Sarcasm and irony, you often fail to detect them, and go full first degree, when it's definitely not appropriate.

Fallible · **#24** by **Fallible** » Dec 02, 2019 12:44 pm

Hermit, your reply didn’t look at all like a reply in kind. It looked like a serious response.

Svartalf · **#25** by **Svartalf** » Dec 02, 2019 12:58 pm

Thommo wrote:
Svartalf wrote:Actually, even if a significant portion of Werstern people deem that mass immigration from less developed country is a disaster for the country's culture, one has to realize that since those morons don't make enough children, and the local population at large is not enough to fill all the jobs that need doing, people from elsewhere have to be imported to fill those jobs and ensure that the country has a future at all... you just have to wonder what Japan will be like in 50 years with their population rapidly growing old, the young generations not being renewed, and the country as a rule being hostile to foreigners... and what I say is true in spades for countries like France where it's the working population that pays for old people's pensions, as opposed to those where pension is a savings system.

Lower birth rates are largely a product of women taking control of their lives, careers and fertility. Characterising this as the behaviour of "morons" seems decidedly unhelpful and barely better than the sort of xenophobic attitude you purport to oppose.

Immigration does not solve the problem of an aging population anyway, it can only ever slow it down on a short term basis.

Female empowerment is fine and all that, it remains that due to their using their newfound freedoms, they are launching the country into a demographical catastrophe, so we have to import foreigners to fill up the jobs that their kids won't due to not being there. Face it, each generation since the boomers is smaller than the previous one, and to make the economy run and pay for the pensions of the elderly, we need the next generations to be as numerous as the previous one, or better, more so.

It was on the fact that , thanks to progress in agriculture and medicine, each generation was MORE numerous than the preceding one, that Europe and North America have been able to expand from the start of Modern period till WWI... now the demographical trend has reversed, and we can't ensure our own future.

Fallible · **#26** by **Fallible** » Dec 02, 2019 1:07 pm

So what? There don’t have to be humans. As to the start of your post, well. I used to think misogyny was over-reported. In my old age, I’m no longer so sure.

NineBerry · **#27** by **NineBerry** » Dec 02, 2019 1:08 pm

Fallible wrote:Hermit, your reply didn’t look at all like a reply in kind. It looked like a serious response.

You 're all just not good at understanding German humour.

Fallible · **#28** by **Fallible** » Dec 02, 2019 1:09 pm

German what?

NineBerry · **#29** by **NineBerry** » Dec 02, 2019 1:12 pm

Svartalf wrote:
It was on the fact that , thanks to progress in agriculture and medicine, each generation was MORE numerous than the preceding one, that Europe and North America have been able to expand from the start of Modern period till WWI... now the demographical trend has reversed, and we can't ensure our own future.

The question is always how wide you define "we".

Rachel Bronwyn · **#30** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Dec 02, 2019 1:20 pm

Why does it matter if the human or western population doesn't persist? The planet doesn't need us. We aren't intended to be here forever. Demographics change.

felltoearth · **#31** by **felltoearth** » Dec 02, 2019 1:22 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Why does it matter if the human of western population doesn't persist? The planet doesn't need us. We aren't intended to be here forever. Demographics change.

The only issue is the collateral damage.

Hermit · **#32** by **Hermit** » Dec 02, 2019 1:29 pm

Svartalf wrote:...to make the economy run and pay for the pensions of the elderly, we need the next generations to be as numerous as the previous one, or better, more so.

Pity the growth of our planet's resources doesn't match population growth to make the economy run as you require.

Thommo · **#33** by **Thommo** » Dec 02, 2019 1:31 pm

Svartalf wrote:Female empowerment is fine and all that, it remains that due to their using their newfound freedoms, they are launching the country into a demographical catastrophe, so we have to import foreigners to fill up the jobs that their kids won't due to not being there.

Well, I don't know, I look at Japan and don't see catastrophe. That's rather the point. And that's with a fertility rate that's been far below (rather than just below as it would be in Western Europe without immigration) replacement rate for decades.

Svartalf wrote:Face it, each generation since the boomers is smaller than the previous one, and to make the economy run and pay for the pensions of the elderly, we need the next generations to be as numerous as the previous one, or better, more so.

No, that's not true. There are all sorts of measures which can balance the books, from longer working lives, to higher taxes, to lower spending in other areas to less generous entitlements as well as changes to family structure that could place less of the burden of care on the state. It's fair to say these things are significant challenges, but that isn't to say they must be impossible or insurmountable ones.

Svartalf wrote:It was on the fact that , thanks to progress in agriculture and medicine, each generation was MORE numerous than the preceding one, that Europe and North America have been able to expand from the start of Modern period till WWI... now the demographical trend has reversed, and we can't ensure our own future.

I think we all know that population expansion was driven by higher than replacement rate combined fertility and mortality. The question is why you think you can assume that people who don't think further population expansion is desireable are automatically moronic. Or indeed why a currently growing population would "ensure our own future". Even in purely economic terms GDP per capita is more informative of a normal person's living situation than GDP.

It seems to me that since we know we can't have an exponentially ever growing population, which amounts to a Ponzi scheme, there are legitimate differences of opinion about what the best level of sustainable overall human population is, whether we've yet to reach it or already overshot, and how that breaks down geographically. I don't think you can or should just assume away that disagreement.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#34** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Dec 02, 2019 1:36 pm

We really aren't needed. There aren't jobs that pay living wages for a lot of us anyways.

Hermit · **#35** by **Hermit** » Dec 02, 2019 1:36 pm

NineBerry wrote:
Fallible wrote:Hermit, your reply didn’t look at all like a reply in kind. It looked like a serious response.

You 're all just not good at understanding German humour.

Thommo · **#36** by **Thommo** » Dec 02, 2019 4:16 pm

Spent some time doing some crude modelling and reading a couple of papers that do much more sophisticated modelling this afternoon. Quite interesting.

If a country had a generation period of 30 years and life expectancy of 80 years (and you ignore effects like inflation and public sector debt) and a population that was working age from 20 to 65, then the increased tax burden of a fertility rate of 1.8 compared to of 2.0 would be that working age people would have to pay about 11% more each to support them, which given the share on educaction, infrastructure, defence and so on would amount to paying a couple of percent more in taxes.

That's the situation countries like Ireland, France and the UK are in. That would be far from a catastrophe.

At the other extreme you have countries like Spain, which has a fertility rate (I was surprised to learn) significantly below that of Japan. For them the necessary tax rises would be much higher, as the tax burden rises hyperbolically as fertility tends to zero.

One thing I didn't factor in, but was detailed in one paper I read, was that lower fertility rates actually lead to more women in the workforce, which offsets the burden to varying degrees depending on the distribution of the fertility rate among women (lots of women having one child and thus time out of their careers is more costly in macroeconomic terms than a few women having a lot of kids and the rest having zero and thus working full time for their whole working life).

Spearthrower · **#37** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 02, 2019 6:05 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Female empowerment is fine and all that, it remains that due to their using their newfound freedoms, they are launching the country into a demographical catastrophe,...

Wait, what?

This smacks of women being morally obliged to breed on behalf of their nation.

Surely you didn't think this through before typing it?

The actual demographic disaster is the 7+ billion people consuming natural resources to maintain their lifestyles. Look at the population of nations 100 years ago and think about what that actually means.

Svartalf wrote:... so we have to import foreigners to fill up the jobs...

Very few countries can be said to "import" foreigners. You're emulating Trump with his idea that Mexico sends people to the US.

Of course, the way it typically works is that people *choose* to move to another country for any number of reasons.

Svartalf wrote:... that their kids won't due to not being there.

These are 'women's kids' you're talking about?

I'm not sure why, but in all the years I studied Human Biology, I never realized that female humans are singularly responsible for creating new humans. I thought men had a part to play in that too!

:what:

Whenever you get onto the topic of immigration, Svartalf, you don't half talk a load of shit. It's really telling because you normally are reasonable, rational and clear-thinking, but the moment it's about johnny foreigners coming over here you suddenly start emoting reality.

Svartalf wrote: Face it,...

Ummm... given what you've said so far, this is not how you start another paragraph. There's nothing to 'face' here expect nonsense.

Svartalf wrote:... each generation since the boomers is smaller than the previous one,

Complete hogwash. You just emoted that fact into existence.

There's been a decline in population growth, that doesn't mean all countries - or even the countries you're talking about - are experiencing sub-replacement fertility rates. I explained this to you in the past.

Svartalf wrote:... and to make the economy run and pay for the pensions of the elderly, we need the next generations to be as numerous as the previous one, or better, more so.

So the only answer is to maintain outdated policies and oblige people to make more babies? What about the precipice of environmental disaster this has brought us to?

Why not just change the broken pension policies? Why expect eternal economic growth on a finite planet?

The idea that we need *more* people is frankly just batshit when we've got more people than ever before and it's not solving any of these problems, in fact, it's making everything worse. All Western nations' pension policies were forged during unsustainable population increases - we can't meat nova our way out of this.

Svartalf wrote:It was on the fact that , thanks to progress in agriculture and medicine, each generation was MORE numerous than the preceding one, that Europe and North America have been able to expand from the start of Modern period till WWI... now the demographical trend has reversed, and we can't ensure our own future.

It has not reversed - that's nonsense. Rather, the growth rate has declined. The Earth is already groaning under 7 billion people, if the only systems we can come up with necessitate more people, then we're all fucked. All we'd be doing is increasing harm as there'll be more people with no greater resources - you're basically advocating blind Malthusianism.

laklak · **#38** by **laklak** » Dec 02, 2019 7:31 pm

Too many fucking ground apes, that's what it all means.

Svartalf · **#39** by **Svartalf** » Dec 02, 2019 7:35 pm

Not enough pale ones and too many brown or darker ones...

Macdoc · **#40** by **Macdoc** » Dec 02, 2019 8:33 pm

Herman likes them slightly browned...

Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Re: Mass immigration is a disaster

Who is online