Immigration

[JemyM]

I heard there are cities in Sweden that have accepted more Iraqi immigrants than the entire US.

 

[blatantninja]

So, taking into account we take in over a million legal immigrants each year, and the various foreign worker programs that exist, how many more million legal immigrants per year do you feel we need in order to avoid economic collapse?
Personally, I think talk of economic collapse if the illegal immigration is finally solved, is just a way to scare people into not opposing illegal immigration. If you magically stopped it overnight there might be one, but if its stopped gradually over a period of years, I don't see an economic collapse.

Well, we'd certainly see some economic impact in the short term, maybe higher prices, but the short term is not what concerns me. The economic collapse will occur over a longer period. We'd end up with an aging labor force and that would collapse our systems.

Take social security for example, when it was implemented in the 30's, there was something like 8 or 9 workers supporting each recipient. Now, it is closer to 2-3 workers per recipient. As the population ages, it will become were recipients number more than workers.

Even if you start excluding people from recieving it, unless they go back in the workforce, it's the same problem. As Greenspan said, there is simply no way to transfer value from one time period to another. Stocks, bonds, etc. only have value if someone else is willing to pay for them. We can talk about social security trust funds and such, but they are based upon the theory that the securities purchased today will be able to be sold in the future. If less than half of our adult population is working, that simply won't happen.

There are only three (I forgot one earlier) ways to combat this:

1) People need to work longer on average. When social security was implemented, the average life span was 67 and you didn't get full benefits (without disability) until 65. Now we've finally bumped that up to 67 for full benefits, but the average life span is approaching 80. It's already become not uncommon for some people to spend more of their adult lives in retirement than in working.

My parents are a great example of this. They retired at 54. They started working at 20. If they live as long as their parents (all died between 88 and 94), they will have spent at least as much time in retirement as in the workforce. However, all their stocks, bonds, and real estate won't have much value if the production of the economy fallen off significantly due to aging. Of course in that case, we'd see a lot of people being forced to work longer, just to survive.

2) We can start kicking out more babies. Unfortunately, that's a hard thing to accomplish. Government stipends for more kids will help, but not that much, and the people that are going to take advantage of it generally aren't going to be the people producing large amounts of value in the economy.

3) We can import it.

Option 3 to me is the only real long term solution. That doesn't mean just open the floodgates and let anyone it, but legal immigration needs to be tripled, maybe even quadrupled, especially for higher skilled workers.

Population growth has never been a problem for this country until the last few decades. If we don't fix it, in 20-40 years we will find ourselves in a crushing economic situation that could destroy the country as we know it.

 

[blatantninja]

I heard there are cities in Sweden that have accepted more Iraqi immigrants than the entire US.

I don't doubt it. The red tape that exists even for Iraqi's that have given us invaluable aid has made it hard for them to immigrate.

 

[Squeek]

I don't doubt it. The red tape that exists even for Iraqi's that have given us invaluable aid has made it hard for them to immigrate.

I don't doubt he's heard it. I seriously doubt that it's true.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't doubt he's heard it. I seriously doubt that it's true.

In that case, you would be mistaken.

[ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/13/europe/sweden.php ]

The data is a bit old, though; in 2007, the US settled 1,608 Iraqi refugees. Still a far cry from Swedish numbers (ca 9,000), and less than the projected number for Södertälje alone (ca 2,000).

 

[Squeek]

Hmmmm. On second thought, I guess it would be problematic for us, wouldn't it? That's very humane of those folks over in Södertälje.

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

 

[Prime Junta]

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

You're joking, right?

 

[JemyM]

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

To us it's human beings.

 

[Prime Junta]

Most of 'em are Christian, anyway.

 

[The Hulk]

Hmm, that basically sounds like the Mitt Romney position(Ron Paul advocated reform of the legal immigration process to make it more fair and to increase legal immigration once illegal immigration was solved, but not 3-4 million per year), huge increase in legal immigration if illegal immigration is to be stopped(actually can never fully stop it, but can cut it way down).
You mentioned at the time social security was implemented, average lifespan was 67 and now its 80. So why not raise the retirement age up to 70 and then progressively over time raise it higher to compensate for ever increasing lifespans? That would help a lot. Also, I believe we need to let all the young people who want to get out of social security and keep that extra money to get out of social security entirely and let them plan for their own retirement. That would help a lot too.
I do believe the government (and even private institutions) could do more to encourage and offer incentives for Americans to have kids. I think one problem is, many Americans are aware of the huge overpopulation problem some parts of the world is experiencing, they see the world becoming more and more crowded, so they feel they are doing the responsible thing by choosing not to have kids and not add to the overpopulation problem. There would have to be an effort to counter that line of thinking, and let Americans know that we need a higher birthrate in this country for the health of the economy.
So, if the above things were implemented, then how many legal immigrants per year do you feel would be sufficient?

 

[blatantninja]

You mentioned at the time social security was implemented, average lifespan was 67 and now its 80. So why not raise the retirement age up to 70 and then progressively over time raise it higher to compensate for ever increasing lifespans? That would help a lot.

I agree with this, but it won't solve all the problems. For one thing, even though we are living longer, our ability to work longer isn't necessarily increasing at the same rate. IE, while you would take more people off of standard social security, you'd have a lot more ending up receiving it for disability as they get older.

Also, the productivity of elderly workers often, though not always, is going to be lower than the main work force, so one they'll have trouble staying employed longer and two they probably won't earn as much as they would before.

Plus, eventually people die. Our population is aging. With only internal growth, we could end up at a point where our workers are dieing off so fast that we end up with a large labor shortage. Of course, we could open the floodgates at that point, but it would be a rough transition.

Also, I believe we need to let all the young people who want to get out of social security and keep that extra money to get out of social security entirely and let them plan for their own retirement. That would help a lot too.

Well, a couple of problems with that (though I wish I could invest my portion myself!)

1) if you don't force people to keep it invested, many, if not most will just spend it and when they can't work anymore will simply end up on welfare.

2) If you let the young people opt out, the middle generation people are screwed. The trust fund isn't going to to cover their entitlements.

I do believe the government (and even private institutions) could do more to encourage and offer incentives for Americans to have kids. I think one problem is, many Americans are aware of the huge overpopulation problem some parts of the world is experiencing, they see the world becoming more and more crowded, so they feel they are doing the responsible thing by choosing not to have kids and not add to the overpopulation problem. There would have to be an effort to counter that line of thinking, and let Americans know that we need a higher birthrate in this country for the health of the economy.

The problem is simply that we have the inverse of the poverty trap. The poverty trap is that poor areas tend to have higher birth rates (partly because there isn't anything else to do!) and people begin having children at younger ages.

In developed countries, there is a natural drift towards having lower amounts of children as well as doing it later. I'm a prime example. My grand parents were poor immigrants, married by 18, had their first child at 20 and last at 30. My father didn't get married until after he was out of the army and halfway through college at 24, had his first kid at 26 and me at 30. I'm 32, just got married last year and probably won't have my first kid until I'm 34.

It's not that I'm worried about over population or anything (though I am), it's that I had other things to do besides settle down and start having kids. In fact, the only reason I've conceded to having a kid in the next two years is that while I don't feel quite ready to have one, I don't want to be trying to pay for college for my kids when I'm supposed to be entering retirement.

So, if the above things were implemented, then how many legal immigrants per year do you feel would be sufficient?

I can't say I have an exact answer to that. I will say this. We are getting about 1.2MM legal immigrants each year and about 1MM illegal, so a total of 2.2MM are coming into the US. With a population right about 300MM, that represents about a 0.7% population growth from immigration each year. Our population growth (which I think excludes immigration from the site I was looking at) is about 1%.

So the total population of the US is growing around 1.7% per year. Even with that (and granted many illegals do not stay permanently) we are projected to have an aging population over the next 50 years. So I would say that it needs to be more.

How much more? Well, even with a 0.7% growth in population from legal and illegal immigrants, we have had less than 5% national unemployment, which is a healthy number. Too low unemployment indicates an economy that has limited transferability of labor.

I would say, we probably need to add another million or so a year, though that is really a guess on my part. Obviously we should focus on skilled rather than unskilled (though those are needed as well), and we shouldn't just open the floodgates.

 

[The Hulk]

I agree that we need to let in more skilled and well educated immigrants instead of allowing so many in(mostly illegals) with little or no skills or education. I believe Bill Gates made comments to that effect recently.
And if we could stop illegal immigration(not really totally stop it but cut it down to low and acceptable levels), then I could deal with a doubling of legal immigration until we could convince Americans to start having more kids, then lower legal immigration accordingly when birthrates go up.

 

[Prime Junta]

And if we could stop illegal immigration(not really totally stop it but cut it down to low and acceptable levels), then I could deal with a doubling of legal immigration until we could convince Americans to start having more kids, then lower legal immigration accordingly when birthrates go up.

How do you intend to do that?

If there's one ironclad law of demographics -- some small religious sects excepted* --, it's this: when women learn to read, they stop being baby-machines. Put another way, the socio-economic position of women correlates strongly with fertility.

In other words, the only way to do what you propose -- significantly bump up the American birth rate -- is to put women back between the fist and the stove. Are you willing to accept that as the price you're willing to pay "to convince Americans to start to have more kids?"

*which bleed off people by deconversion at a rate that maintains their population roughly constant

 

[The Hulk]

The stove and the fist? I understand the stove part, but what do you mean by the fist? Physical abuse of women?
I think its possible if a government came right out and said that the country was stagnating, even slowly dying because not enough people were having kids, and they wanted couples to start having more kids to compensate, patriotic couples might do it for the good of the country(and let go of the notion that since the world is getting overpopulated its a good idea to not have any kids), perhaps with some sort of incentive plan(more tax breaks for each child, etc.).
I can't help recall the government calling on patriotic women to work to help America out during WW2(and we also had the baby boom during that time period too). The "We can do it!" posters with Rosy the Riveter comes to mind.

 

[Prime Junta]

The stove and the fist? I understand the stove part, but what do you mean by the fist? Physical abuse of women?

It was a metaphor for the traditional role of women -- dominated by their husbands, confined to the kitchen.

I think its possible if a government came right out and said that the country was stagnating, even slowly dying because not enough people were having kids, and they wanted couples to start having more kids to compensate, patriotic couples might do it for the good of the country(and let go of the notion that since the world is getting overpopulated its a good idea to not have any kids), perhaps with some sort of incentive plan(more tax breaks for each child, etc.).

The first part of your sentence makes no sense -- sure, some patriotic couples might have one for Mom, one for Dad, and one for the Reich, but you won't have enough of them to make a demographic impact without something as rigid and all-encompassing as the Nazi ideology.

The second one does, but only to a limited degree: it has been shown that tax rebates and other incentives do affect fertility. France is near the top end of fertility rates in Europe, and not surprisingly it also spends near the top end on babies -- and has possibly the best universal health care system anywhere. However, even so, the fertility rate is at 1.98 -- below replacement level.

That gives a pretty good idea of how high the fertility rate can go in a society with more or less equal sexes. The USA has a rate of 2.05 -- and a fair part of the difference is accounted for by first-generation Hispanic immigrants, with lower female literacy rates and consequently higher fertility.

In other words, what you're proposing is if not actually impossible, very, very difficult to achieve without resorting to totalitarian forms of social control -- or totalitarian ideologies.

I can't help recall the government calling on patriotic women to work to help America out during WW2(and we also had the baby boom during that time period too). The "We can do it!" posters with Rosy the Riveter comes to mind.

Yah, the good ol' days. Yankee doodle dandy and all that commotion.

By the way, where do you feel is the intrinsic value in making people at home as opposed to importing them from abroad? From where I'm at, the latter looks like a win-win scenario -- the importing country keeps its demographic pyramid healthy, while the exporting one relieves population pressure and acquires both money (through remittances) and valuable skills (through diffusion and return immigration).

The Hispanic people you're importing will assimilate over a couple of generations, just like all your previous generations of immigrants have, and they will enrich your culture with theirs, just like all the previous generations. You won't be overwhelmed by them, because their fertility rates will drop quickly as their socioeconomic position rises -- even though becoming bilingual would certainly enrich your more than impoverish you.

 

[blatantninja]

The baby boom occurred after WW2 when all our sex starved soldiers began returned from overseas.

 

[dteowner]

The Hispanic people you're importing will assimilate over a couple of generations, just like all your previous generations of immigrants have, and they will enrich your culture with theirs, just like all the previous generations. You won't be overwhelmed by them, because their fertility rates will drop quickly as their socioeconomic position rises -- even though becoming bilingual would certainly enrich your more than impoverish you.

I was on board until the end. Fact is, the current Hispanic wave is showing FAR less tendency to assimilate than previous generations. In particular, the country is bending over to speak Spanish, unlike was ever done for Irish, Polish, Russian, Asian, etc waves of yore. Since we're taking away one of the prime vehicles (and motivators) for assimilation, I just don't see a change in that trend. Finally, I think the Hispanic wave is a little more tidal compared to previous ones. The Census Bureau reported a few years back that, at current growth rates, the most common last name in the US by 2050 will be Martinez.

 

[Eliaures]

The "Christian" right in our country has found yet another whack job issue to chase as shown in this article from The Nation, "Missing: The 'Right' Babies". They want you Europeans to do your "biblical duty and multiply" or you will face a 'demographic winter' from Muslim immigration. It's not enough that they spread their xenophobia here in the good ole US, now they want to transmit that disease to Europe; not that it seems you need that much help, what with the Muslim ghettos in France and elsewhere.

 

[Prime Junta]

I was on board until the end. Fact is, the current Hispanic wave is showing FAR less tendency to assimilate than previous generations. In particular, the country is bending over to speak Spanish, unlike was ever done for Irish, Polish, Russian, Asian, etc waves of yore. Since we're taking away one of the prime vehicles (and motivators) for assimilation, I just don't see a change in that trend. Finally, I think the Hispanic wave is a little more tidal compared to previous ones. The Census Bureau reported a few years back that, at current growth rates, the most common last name in the US by 2050 will be Martinez.

That depends on what you mean by assimilation. If you mean linguistic assimilation, you're very likely right -- but what's so terrible about being bilingual anyway? However, I see no reason to believe that the Hispanics won't assimilate culturally -- that is, become an accepted, productive, and constructive part of the American polity.

As to the projection, without checking it I would venture a guess that it's a straight-line trend extension based on current rates. That never works in demographics, as it fails to take into account the drop in fertility caused by socio-economic improvement and female literacy. Fertility rates always fall after the second generation.

 

[Prime Junta]

The "Christian" right in our country has found yet another whack job issue to chase as shown in this article from The Nation, "Missing: The 'Right' Babies". They want you Europeans to do your "biblical duty and multiply" or you will face a 'demographic winter' from Muslim immigration. It's not enough that they spread their xenophobia here in the good ole US, now they want to transmit that disease to Europe; not that it seems you need that much help, what with the Muslim ghettos in France and elsewhere.

Nope, I don't think we Europeans need lessons in xenophobia from anyone. We invented the word, after all.

And what's true for Hispanics in the USA is true for North African Muslims in Europe.