Europe submits voluntarily

[Bomb#20]

The discussion has nothing to do with overcrowding. It is a discussion of the distribution of the ages of people in the population.

The discussion is about your claim "Germany needs immigration to avoid the fate of Japan". The notion that overcrowding is not relevant to the discussion is insane. Too much immigration will give Germany the fate of Japan.

If there are eight workers for everyone who is retired the payroll taxes for the eight workers will be lower than if there are only two workers for everyone who is retired.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the cost of living, the retirement age, life expectancy at retirement, what sources of retiree income there are besides the payroll tax, yada yada. Sure, you can say "all things equal"; but why should all things be equal? The policy decisions and cultural changes that affect whether there are eight or two workers per retiree will probably affect those other factors too.

It just means subcultures that breed faster than this will become a higher fraction of the population and the rate will pop back up over a period of generations.

Of course, one of the many reasons that the birth rate has dropped is because women want to pursue their careers and that few fathers aren't willing to abandon their careers. But the main reason is that the cost of raising a child in the developed countries is high, meaning that couples are having fewer children. And these factors are the same for the subcultures, most tend to limit the number of children that they have in the second and third generations in a developed country.

Those factors aren't the same in all subcultures. The cost of raising a child varies between subcultures, as does the number of women pursuing careers, and people's willingness to put up with low standards of living. Some subcultures stay poor and breed like rabbits generation after generation while those around them have a demographic transition. Israel's Haredi are an example.

It any of these factors might be temporary, but it hasn't been in Japan.

Three generations isn't very many data points to base long-term extrapolation on.

This approaches babbling. I need some more explanation before I can accept the "Theory of Yearning Genes."

That's a counterargument on a level with what comes out of creationists' mouths. Learn some biology. "Genes for wanting babies" is no more a theory of yearning genes than "Genes for being tall" is a theory of tall DNA molecules. A "gene for X" simply means a DNA variant at a particular location that by some (usually very indirect) mechanism causes the organism to be more likely to have feature X. Practically any difference of any organism from the average can have been made more or less likely by some genetic difference.

In the second place, the replacement fertility rate is a function of the sex ratio. If average women against all odds continue to only want 1.86 babies in the long term, that's nothing that can't be dealt with simply by making 86 baby boys per 100 baby girls. Sperm sorting technology is on its way.

And in the third place, the "not enough workers to support them because their birth rate is no longer replacing those who die" argument is qualitative, and not sensitive to the difference between 2.099 and 1.86. If you want to make an issue of how far below 2.099 1.86 is, you'll need to present a quantitative argument and run the numbers.

You asserted that 2.1 is the birthrate needed to maintain the population and I have no reason to doubt it. Any birthrate under this will mean that the population decreases. Any birth rate greater than 2.1 and the population will increase.

That's the case only as long as people don't use sex-ratio-influencing technologies. For instance, in China it would take more than 2.1 babies per woman to prevent future population decreases, due to all the preferential aborting of female fetuses there.

The only thing that lower birth rate of 1.86 and 2.099 will mean is the speed of the decrease in the population.

Yes, that was my point. You have no basis for saying that a decrease is a problem full stop. If you want to show there exists a problem for immigration to solve, you'll need to show how fast a population decline it takes for the decline to become a problem.

Yes, working past retirement is a solution for a lower birth rate but it only is a stop gap, measure, as long as the birth rate stays below the replacement rate the problem will keep getting worse, requiring people to work even longer past a common retirement age. Finally it will be work until you die, and even then it will continue to get worse.

Show your work. What you wrote makes no mathematical sense.

Point taken. If everyone works until they die then no one will retire. What I said makes no sense.

But do you want to work until you die to lessen the strain on Social Security?

Clearly you didn't take my point. Sorry about the ambiguity. I didn't mean only the bit at the end, "work until you die, and even then it will continue to get worse." makes no mathematical sense. What I meant was, none of it makes mathematical sense. Show your work for why you believe " as long as the birth rate stays below the replacement rate the problem will keep getting worse, requiring people to work even longer past a common retirement age". <== THAT makes no mathematical sense.

Why would you imagine that a birth rate of 2.05 instead of 2.1 wouldn't be compensated for by some specific retirement age higher than 66, say, 67? And an even lower birth rate, say, 1.9, wouldn't be compensated for by some even higher specific retirement age, say, 70? Where are you getting the notion that if it's 2.09 then we'll have to continuously crank the retirement age higher and higher until nobody gets to retire?

Increased automation is only going to help in manufacturing and we have pushed most of those jobs overseas. Most people in the US are now in the service industries.

What the heck are you talking about? Labor saving machinery is ubiquitous in service industries and computerization is only accelerating that trend.

The largest service sector is the financial sector and it is heavily computerized. In your opinion are there fewer people working in the financial sector and is the amount of money that they cost the economy more or less than it was forty years ago?

What's your point? The industry is doing a whole lot more than it did forty years ago. You could have made the exact same argument about the car industry in 1926 -- "Look how much more machinery they're using, and yet look how many more autoworkers there are than in 1886." -- and it would have been a bad argument, because it ignores how many more cars were being built in 1926.

I know that you are only an Econ 101 level of understanding of economics. You and I have discussed economics before. I also know that you show no interest in understanding economics any better than you already do.

You misunderstand. I show no interest in learning economics any better ==> from you <==. I do not believe you are qualified to teach it. If you wish to persuade me that Germany needs immigration because four-legs-good-neoliberalism-bad or whatever the hell it is you're trying to argue, find a reputable economist to back you up, so I'll have some reason to suspect you know what you're talking about. You come off as a crackpot.

The University of Chicago is the hot bed of neoliberal economics. They push supply side economics, the idea that if we give all of the gains from automation to the rich that they will invest more, wages will go up and we will all become rich.

You do not appear to be competent at explaining theories you disagree with. You appear to have a regrettable tendency to carelessly mix your own premises in with your opponents' premises, and then claim what your opponents are pushing is the resulting mixed-up mess.

The founder of neoliberalism, Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, had a theory about wishing. He said that the economy could be changed by wishing, that all we have to do is to treat the economy as if it was the way that we wished it to be, and that it will behave for us as if it is the way that we wish it to be.

I don't believe you. Based on your track record, the fact that you say Friedman said those words does not give me any grounds to elevate my estimate of the probability that he said them. Feel free to provide a link, backing up your claim that he said that. But failing that, I'll take the fact that you put such implausible words in your opponent's mouth as telling me a great deal about the worth of your words, and nothing at all about the worth of Friedman's.

In any event, if your point is to denounce neoliberalism, there are better threads for it than this. So let us presume for the sake of argument that Chicago School economics is completely wrong. How does this help show immigration is needed? How does the hypothetical failure of the neoclassical synthesis help show that eight workers and five hundred machines had an easier time supporting a retiree than two workers and five thousand machines will have?

 

[Jokodo]

The discussion is about your claim "Germany needs immigration to avoid the fate of Japan". The notion that overcrowding is not relevant to the discussion is insane. Too much immigration will give Germany the fate of Japan.


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the cost of living, the retirement age, life expectancy at retirement, what sources of retiree income there are besides the payroll tax, yada yada. Sure, you can say "all things equal"; but why should all things be equal? The policy decisions and cultural changes that affect whether there are eight or two workers per retiree will probably affect those other factors too.
<snip>

Actually, the retirement age and life expectancy at retirement affect the ratio of workers to retirees but do not affect the payroll tax an individual worker has to pay given that ratio.

"[W]hat sources of retiree income there are besides the payroll tax" does affect the payroll tax but it does not, on average, affect the workers' purchasing power corrected take home wage (as long as retirees' and society's expectations about retirement living standards don't change). Whether retirees receive their income from payroll tax, as profits from a fund, or buy their goods and services with gold they stashed away while they were themselves earning wages doesn't negate the simple and inevitable fact that in order for retirees to have access to goods and services, those producing the goods and services will have to be, collectively and on average, allocated less than they produce, and the more so the higher the ratio of retirees (and the living standard they expect).

This is true when the worker pays a payroll tax, it is true when his wage is suppressed because the fund owning the company demands high dividends, and it remains true when retirees flooding the market for consumer goods with large quantities of stashed gold leads to inflation, depressing their real wages even as their nominal take-home pay stays constant.

 

[angelo]

It is a Ponzi scheme then called life.

Who will support the elderly then if not the current workers?

The number of workers has to at least stay the same for the burden on the current work force to be tolerable.

Ever heard of superannuation?

LOL - do you think that the money you put into Super is securly stored somewhere to be paid out to you in the future?

It's not.

The amount you can claim on retirement is completely dependent on the state of the economy when you retire. That is, it's dependent on the people who are working at that time - just as the money available in Super to retirees today depends on the economy as it is now (and not as it was back when today's retirees were contributing to it).

What crock pot of a reply! Many European countries have had a form of superannuation for decades and it works just fine. There are some retirees in Italy for example who now receive more income in retirement than they received salaries when they working.
They, or their employers paid into a retirement scheme. An uncle of mine who worked as a prison guard for over 40 years in various Italian prisons now collects over 2000 Euros per month in retirement, while when working received under 2000 per month after tax.

 

[Jokodo]

LOL - do you think that the money you put into Super is securly stored somewhere to be paid out to you in the future?

It's not.

The amount you can claim on retirement is completely dependent on the state of the economy when you retire. That is, it's dependent on the people who are working at that time - just as the money available in Super to retirees today depends on the economy as it is now (and not as it was back when today's retirees were contributing to it).

What crock pot of a reply! Many European countries have had a form of superannuation for decades and it works just fine. There are some retirees in Italy for example who now receive more income in retirement than they received salaries when they working.
They, or their employers paid into a retirement scheme. An uncle of mine who worked as a prison guard for over 40 years in various Italian prisons now collects over 2000 Euros per month in retirement, while when working received under 2000 per month after tax.

"It works fine" does nothing to negate the fact that the current workers have to work more than they consume to make it work.

The difference between a payroll tax and a greedy fund that extracts masses of dividends from the company you're working for, as reflected in your wages, isn't all that big a difference in effect.

 

[Bomb#20]

For every retiree who consumes goods and services, someone has to produce those goods and services and be recompensed with less than the value of the goods and services produced after all deductions. Else, there wouldn't be any goods and services left after the workers have consumed their shares.

Less than the value to whom of the goods and services produced?

It's a logical necessity that, if people consume who do not produce, those who produce will have to produce more than they're consuming. This fact is independent of <snip>

That does not appear to be a logical necessity. Why should we believe it's a fact?

When a caveman found a banana in the forest and ate it, how did this cause another caveman to bang the rocks together into an extra hand-axe he didn't get to use?

 

[Bomb#20]

"It works fine" does nothing to negate the fact that the current workers have to work more than they consume to make it work.

You keep saying stuff like that. What is the unit that "work" and "consume" are both measured in, that makes you think "work more than they consume" is a mathematically meaningful comparison, rather than a phrase like "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another point worth noting is that eventually the ratio of pensioners to workers will stabilise. If not, we'd finish up with more people at or over the pensionable age than under - an absurd proposition unless the birth rate is zero or near it. In reality the ratio of pensioner to worker will reduce, then stabilise when the births get stuck at a particular rate. What that rate actually turns out to be does not matter, as long as it stays steady.

The problem is that the birthrate in all of the developed countries is dropping. And it is dropping below the replacement rate which means that the number of retired people will increase relative to the number of workers.

The bit you're quoting explains why that is not a permanent problem. Once the birthrate levels out - and it does not matter where it levels out - the ratio between pensioners and workers will eventually normalise.

Why do you assume it will level out?

 

[Hermit]

The bit you're quoting explains why that is not a permanent problem. Once the birthrate levels out - and it does not matter where it levels out - the ratio between pensioners and workers will eventually normalise.

Why do you assume it will level out?

If nothing else, the birthrate cannot drop below zero. That would then constitute a worst case scenario.

Ignoring that limit, do you assume the birthrate will not level out?

 

[angelo]

In Western countries it has levelled out, or dropping below replacement levels. Which is good for the planet overall. It's the " shithole " countries that can't even afford to feed their present populations where the birth rate is out of control.

 

[Hermit]

In Western countries it has levelled out, or dropping below replacement levels. Which is good for the planet overall. It's the " shithole " countries that can't even afford to feed their present populations where the birth rate is out of control.

Out of control? Please familiarise yourself with the relevant facts. Birth rates are falling everywhere, including the "shithole" countries, except for the North American ones. There they are higher now than they were between 1975 and 1989.

 

[angelo]

Your graph shows the "shit hole" countries birth rate much higher than Western nations!

 

[Hermit]

Your graph shows the "shit hole" countries birth rate much higher than Western nations!

You wrote the birth rate in the " shithole " countries that can't even afford to feed their present populations is out of control, Angelo. I provided a graph showing that it is far from out of control - that it is in fact dropping at a significantly faster rate than the birthrates of the non-"shit hole" countries.

Full marks for backpedalling, but why did you bother? Is it impossible to admit to having been wrong?

 

[Jokodo]

For every retiree who consumes goods and services, someone has to produce those goods and services and be recompensed with less than the value of the goods and services produced after all deductions. Else, there wouldn't be any goods and services left after the workers have consumed their shares.

Less than the value to whom of the goods and services produced?

It's a logical necessity that, if people consume who do not produce, those who produce will have to produce more than they're consuming. This fact is independent of <snip>

That does not appear to be a logical necessity. Why should we believe it's a fact?

If those who produce on average consume as much as they produce (directly or indirectly - the production of investment goods to uphold and enlarge production is included), it logically follows that collectively, they'll consume all that is produced, leaving nothing to consume for the retirees. You understand manna isn't a thing in the real world?

If you think otherwise, care to spell out the alternative?

When a caveman found a banana in the forest and ate it, how did this cause another caveman to bang the rocks together into an extra hand-axe he didn't get to use?

Retirees don't tend to find the products and services they consume in the forest, and cavemen sure as hell didn't find any bananas (as we know them) - the banana's wild form is barely a recognisable relative of its cultivar due to centuries of selective breeding.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course, strictly speaking, what I said only holds at the global level. A retirement fund from a country with a growing retiree population may well keep paying out acceptable pensions to retirees without increasing the burden on a shrinking number of local workers - by investing primarily in countries which still have a higher ratio of working-age people.

But admitting that while upholding your dislike of immigration would be the highest level of hypocrisy, as it would in effect be saying "yes, we do need young able-bodied people from third world countries to work for the upkeep of our retirees, but I want them to stay put where they are while doing so".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your graph shows the "shit hole" countries birth rate much higher than Western nations!

You wrote the birth rate in the " shithole " countries that can't even afford to feed their present populations is out of control, Angelo. I provided a graph showing that it is far from out of control - that it is in fact dropping at a significantly faster rate than the birthrates of the non-"shit hole" countries.

Full marks for backpedalling, but why did you bother? Is it impossible to admit to having been wrong?

Visit India a few times, then wonder where all this growth is. Ask the auto rickshaw driver or the man with the illegal foodstall on Connaught Place one of the largest financial, commercial and business centres in New Delhi. Sure the chairman of Reliance built himself a 27 story house in Mumbai

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/ind...s-family-doesn-t-defecate-in-open-331183.html
Mumbai Auto Driver Wants To Build Toilet In His Village So His Family Doesn't Defecate In Open

Developing countries have a long way to go.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course, strictly speaking, what I said only holds at the global level. A retirement fund from a country with a growing retiree population may well keep paying out acceptable pensions to retirees without increasing the burden on a shrinking number of local workers - by investing primarily in countries which still have a higher ratio of working-age people.

But admitting that while upholding your dislike of immigration would be the highest level of hypocrisy, as it would in effect be saying "yes, we do need young able-bodied people from third world countries to work for the upkeep of our retirees, but I want them to stay put where they are while doing so".

It's an amazing fact but these young people will also grow old. They will require care one day as Africa empties into Europe.

 

[Jokodo]

Your graph shows the "shit hole" countries birth rate much higher than Western nations!

You wrote the birth rate in the " shithole " countries that can't even afford to feed their present populations is out of control, Angelo. I provided a graph showing that it is far from out of control - that it is in fact dropping at a significantly faster rate than the birthrates of the non-"shit hole" countries.

Full marks for backpedalling, but why did you bother? Is it impossible to admit to having been wrong?

Visit India a few times, then wonder where all this growth is. Ask the auto rickshaw driver or the man with the illegal foodstall on Connaught Place one of the largest financial, commercial and business centres in New Delhi. Sure the chairman of Reliance built himself a 27 story house in Mumbai

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/ind...s-family-doesn-t-defecate-in-open-331183.html
Mumbai Auto Driver Wants To Build Toilet In His Village So His Family Doesn't Defecate In Open

Developing countries have a long way to go.

When I was born, most Indians could not read and write.
Today (or rather, as of the latest census in 2011), that number is down to one quarter and what feels like half the contributors on Quora are writing from India.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course, strictly speaking, what I said only holds at the global level. A retirement fund from a country with a growing retiree population may well keep paying out acceptable pensions to retirees without increasing the burden on a shrinking number of local workers - by investing primarily in countries which still have a higher ratio of working-age people.

But admitting that while upholding your dislike of immigration would be the highest level of hypocrisy, as it would in effect be saying "yes, we do need young able-bodied people from third world countries to work for the upkeep of our retirees, but I want them to stay put where they are while doing so".

It's an amazing fact but these young people will also grow old. They will require care one day as Africa empties into Europe.

So you're saying we should keep them in their countries while they supply the goods our old people will consume because then we don't have any responsibility for them when *they* get old?

Basically, your solution to an aging population is "exploit the rest of the world more", and you aren't even trying to hide it?

 

[Vork]

The OP is based on the rather shaky proposition that the Germans can't properly vet the immigrants to their country. If this is true why do you think that they can properly vet guest workers?

Whether or not Germany can, or wants to, vet immigrants (I'm not aware they even really try to check for cultural values?), guest workers are something quite different to bringing in people on a permanent basis. It's a lot less important that guest workers have shared values, and you don't expect the same loyalty to the nation in the case of foreign guests. Obviously you still don't want to be bringing in terrorists, but you could probably live with them having quite different values, as they will be going home at some point.

The guest workers' children have to be educated and they take the education home with them, Germany doesn't gain anything from educating them.

Don't use people with children? That way, you aren't paying for education. You aren't paying for high healthcare costs in old age. You aren't paying for pensions.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Of course, strictly speaking, what I said only holds at the global level. A retirement fund from a country with a growing retiree population may well keep paying out acceptable pensions to retirees without increasing the burden on a shrinking number of local workers - by investing primarily in countries which still have a higher ratio of working-age people.

The only other way would be if retirees hoarded 20 year old canned food, pharmaceuticals, christmas cards... hang on