Population decline, nasty as it is, is far superior to population replacement. When the Canadian state simply becomes unable to pay for the oldies' benefits, it will stop. This will be unpleasant, but it leaves hope for a future for my kids and grandkids as Canadians. Replacement level immigration, which is what we are dealing with now, does not.
The Boomers, true to their nature, hope to run out the clock and let their descendants, if any, worry about the fact that they have destroyed Canada (as a nation and culture) with their selfishness.
Jesus I hate "the boomers" argument. What are you, a millennial? Gen Z? Should I round up stories about the people in your generation, filter it through jealousy and resentment, and apply broad generalizations to you?
People make decisions that are in their best interest, if they're intelligent. That means doing, and voting for, what get's you ahead. They got jobs, bought houses, saved, and voted for what they valued. Just like you would have done in their position. The fact that society is going through a tough time is not the fault of boomers. People respond to incentives, it's not a conspiracy.
You can convince me, with data, that politicians, some of whom may be boomers, are making bad decisions, possibly driven by corruption, but replacement theory is nonsenses.
When 5/6 of the people added to the population each year are foreigners rather than children of the existing population, what do you call that except replacement? It's not a theory - it's a fact.
The Boomers thing is because I am only slightly younger than Boomers and have my own young adult children, and so realize just how deeply unnatural it is for them to "make decisions that are in their best interests" rather than in their children's and grandchildren's best interests.
Of course we can also talk about how immigration in sufficient numbers to affect population decline simply doesn't work for Canada. Immigrants aren't that young age suppress native fertility; their low skill level and different culture means they are generally net economic burdens; and DEI policies means that they actively harm Canadians by being prioritized for opportunity.
This was an excellent post—well balanced on the whole.
I especially love your unstated use of “opportunity cost”—“There are no perfect solutions, only sets of tradeoffs”. (Thomas Sowell is a great proponent of this economic concept)
I would like to point out that you forgot to mention that increased employment can lead to lower wages AND LOWER PRICES due to the forces of supply and demand in the labor market. When more people are employed, the supply of labor increases, which, all else being equal, can drive down the price of labor (wages). Simultaneously, increased employment can lead to increased production of goods and services, potentially lowering their prices due to increased supply and competition.
You might consider explaining the difference between nominal wages and real wages. The fact that a worker’s wages remain higher or conversely become lower tells us very little about his actual wealth or economic condition.
I try to limit the length of my posts so can't cover anything. However, I won't claim I left these two ideas out intentionally. I probably just didn't think of them.
If I come back to the topic in the future I will try to remember to include them.
I immigrated to Germany (Yes yes call me gatekeeper, ladder-puller w/e i don't care).
And i can definitely see the effects of *Unchecked* immigration almost daily.
You are either a thriving socialist-democracy (a concept i believe in), or you have open borders. You cannot do both.
But. Closed borders also present a problem.
It sounds well and good to only allow professionals or academically inclined people to immigrate to your country after some scrutiny. But there are also cultural gaps to pay attention.
I wrote some comment a few days ago about the inflation of degrees in Germany, putting many young Germans behind the professional curve in comparison to Israel (which is hysterical considering Israelis have to waste 3 years in a military service), the US and certainly some Asian countries which I'm less knowledgeable about.
Many Germans will not be able to compete with those immigrants who have much more experience compared to age when it comes to those jobs and opportunities. That will simply bring us back to square one. Locals being against immigration.
Good points, thanks. Just off the top of my head I'd say there are 4 approaches to immigration:
1) Closed borders
2) Open borders
3) Rational immigration
4) Mass immigration
At the moment mass immigration (loosely defined) is the approach that Canada is taking. There is little, if any, thought being put into our immigration policy.
You mentioned Israel as the only country above replacement rate in the OECD but it's not all roses. We have a unique problem. Due to (roughly 3-4 pages essay in how it came to be).. reasons, we allow the orthodox religious to not work and subsidize them, they are a net burden on taxes and resources.
Also we have a not insignificant influx of jewish high-skilled immigrants from all over the world accounting for a significant portion of increase in population, a good thing.
Our actual secular birthrate (among Jewish Israeli Women) is 1.96 in 2020 according to the national statistics bureau. Muslim (The secular amongst them are barely a statistic error) birthrates are on par with orthodox jewish at an astounding 6.6. But at least they work, even if sometimes cash-in hand and low paying.
In short, our liberal, high-earning and value creating demographic group is also slowly becoming a minority, in a few decades we will not be able to sustain the same quality of life while supporting millions of voluntarily unemployed people.
i'll write a second comment about closed/open borders as it's a different topic.
Interesting. But respectfully, I would disagree with both ends of the statement: "there are two policies that will bring about social/societal collapse: 1) Open borders and 2) Closed borders"
Whether or not each one is truth is conditional on other dynamics. Take 2 for example, there's all sorts of assumptions typically baked into the claims made to back up its veracity, such as that there is no large potential slack in the labor force. Or that constraints on the supply of labor will necessarily mean corresponding decrease in *real* production and provision of goods and services. Or that gains made from less population in regards to the costs and availability of resources, such as energy, won't be substantial. And thats just off the top of my head, but there are others, including some big ones. Its all dependent on the details of the situation the system we're referring to is in. And both systems an their situations vary to a large degree across both space and time. What are the details of the UK"s system and its current situation?
The closed border statement is based on the fact that the birth rate is not high enough to maintain the population and therefore social services will become unaffordable. This might not mean societal collapse, but I lack a better term for it. Drastic changes to living standards perhaps?
The open border statement assumes that immigration rates will skyrocket and overwhelm both the infrastructure and social services. Given the problems cities are having just dealing with illegal immigration, it's not unreasonable to assume open borders would make matters worse (ex: there already isn't enough housing for people living in Canada).
A decreasing population size does not necessarily mean the collapse of social services; it could actually it could lead to big cost savings in various ways. And ewer people would require fewer services. As the population shrinks, the demand for resources like food, energy, and housing goes down, potentially lowering the overall costs associated with them. Tighter labor markets can lead to a number of different things, higher wages, re-politicization. The social programs might be very bloated, the NHS seems to increase spending while lowering capacity, where's the money going? That list could go on and on. The point is that its not a given. You have to look at the specifics of the case and the responses to it that occur once its happened
False... immigration hasn't solved any of the problems its been claimed it will do... it's actually just exacerbated them. People are not just widgets you can replace one with another.
Especially now with mass 3rd world low quality immigrants its a disaster.
Focus on automation, raising the fertility rate via lowering the cost of living and other policies. Not ponzi immigration which will turn the west into 3rd world dumps
The cultural changes are huge and leave Canadians with no option but to accept new social norms creeping into the fabric. Some of these new norms are which are unfavorable to women etc.). Attempts to approach this subject leads to cries of racism, leaving Canadians with little or no voice.
Population decline, nasty as it is, is far superior to population replacement. When the Canadian state simply becomes unable to pay for the oldies' benefits, it will stop. This will be unpleasant, but it leaves hope for a future for my kids and grandkids as Canadians. Replacement level immigration, which is what we are dealing with now, does not.
The Boomers, true to their nature, hope to run out the clock and let their descendants, if any, worry about the fact that they have destroyed Canada (as a nation and culture) with their selfishness.
Jesus I hate "the boomers" argument. What are you, a millennial? Gen Z? Should I round up stories about the people in your generation, filter it through jealousy and resentment, and apply broad generalizations to you?
People make decisions that are in their best interest, if they're intelligent. That means doing, and voting for, what get's you ahead. They got jobs, bought houses, saved, and voted for what they valued. Just like you would have done in their position. The fact that society is going through a tough time is not the fault of boomers. People respond to incentives, it's not a conspiracy.
You can convince me, with data, that politicians, some of whom may be boomers, are making bad decisions, possibly driven by corruption, but replacement theory is nonsenses.
When 5/6 of the people added to the population each year are foreigners rather than children of the existing population, what do you call that except replacement? It's not a theory - it's a fact.
The Boomers thing is because I am only slightly younger than Boomers and have my own young adult children, and so realize just how deeply unnatural it is for them to "make decisions that are in their best interests" rather than in their children's and grandchildren's best interests.
Obviously I acknowledge that this doesn't apply to every single Boomer, but the election result shows that it applies to a good majority.
Of course we can also talk about how immigration in sufficient numbers to affect population decline simply doesn't work for Canada. Immigrants aren't that young age suppress native fertility; their low skill level and different culture means they are generally net economic burdens; and DEI policies means that they actively harm Canadians by being prioritized for opportunity.
Phil,
This was an excellent post—well balanced on the whole.
I especially love your unstated use of “opportunity cost”—“There are no perfect solutions, only sets of tradeoffs”. (Thomas Sowell is a great proponent of this economic concept)
I would like to point out that you forgot to mention that increased employment can lead to lower wages AND LOWER PRICES due to the forces of supply and demand in the labor market. When more people are employed, the supply of labor increases, which, all else being equal, can drive down the price of labor (wages). Simultaneously, increased employment can lead to increased production of goods and services, potentially lowering their prices due to increased supply and competition.
You might consider explaining the difference between nominal wages and real wages. The fact that a worker’s wages remain higher or conversely become lower tells us very little about his actual wealth or economic condition.
Two good points Daniel.
I try to limit the length of my posts so can't cover anything. However, I won't claim I left these two ideas out intentionally. I probably just didn't think of them.
If I come back to the topic in the future I will try to remember to include them.
I think open borders are a disaster.
I immigrated to Germany (Yes yes call me gatekeeper, ladder-puller w/e i don't care).
And i can definitely see the effects of *Unchecked* immigration almost daily.
You are either a thriving socialist-democracy (a concept i believe in), or you have open borders. You cannot do both.
But. Closed borders also present a problem.
It sounds well and good to only allow professionals or academically inclined people to immigrate to your country after some scrutiny. But there are also cultural gaps to pay attention.
I wrote some comment a few days ago about the inflation of degrees in Germany, putting many young Germans behind the professional curve in comparison to Israel (which is hysterical considering Israelis have to waste 3 years in a military service), the US and certainly some Asian countries which I'm less knowledgeable about.
Many Germans will not be able to compete with those immigrants who have much more experience compared to age when it comes to those jobs and opportunities. That will simply bring us back to square one. Locals being against immigration.
Good points, thanks. Just off the top of my head I'd say there are 4 approaches to immigration:
1) Closed borders
2) Open borders
3) Rational immigration
4) Mass immigration
At the moment mass immigration (loosely defined) is the approach that Canada is taking. There is little, if any, thought being put into our immigration policy.
Fascinating article.
You mentioned Israel as the only country above replacement rate in the OECD but it's not all roses. We have a unique problem. Due to (roughly 3-4 pages essay in how it came to be).. reasons, we allow the orthodox religious to not work and subsidize them, they are a net burden on taxes and resources.
Also we have a not insignificant influx of jewish high-skilled immigrants from all over the world accounting for a significant portion of increase in population, a good thing.
Our actual secular birthrate (among Jewish Israeli Women) is 1.96 in 2020 according to the national statistics bureau. Muslim (The secular amongst them are barely a statistic error) birthrates are on par with orthodox jewish at an astounding 6.6. But at least they work, even if sometimes cash-in hand and low paying.
In short, our liberal, high-earning and value creating demographic group is also slowly becoming a minority, in a few decades we will not be able to sustain the same quality of life while supporting millions of voluntarily unemployed people.
i'll write a second comment about closed/open borders as it's a different topic.
Thanks for the additional details. I admit I did not look into this but just noted that Israel is an outlier.
Interesting. But respectfully, I would disagree with both ends of the statement: "there are two policies that will bring about social/societal collapse: 1) Open borders and 2) Closed borders"
Whether or not each one is truth is conditional on other dynamics. Take 2 for example, there's all sorts of assumptions typically baked into the claims made to back up its veracity, such as that there is no large potential slack in the labor force. Or that constraints on the supply of labor will necessarily mean corresponding decrease in *real* production and provision of goods and services. Or that gains made from less population in regards to the costs and availability of resources, such as energy, won't be substantial. And thats just off the top of my head, but there are others, including some big ones. Its all dependent on the details of the situation the system we're referring to is in. And both systems an their situations vary to a large degree across both space and time. What are the details of the UK"s system and its current situation?
The closed border statement is based on the fact that the birth rate is not high enough to maintain the population and therefore social services will become unaffordable. This might not mean societal collapse, but I lack a better term for it. Drastic changes to living standards perhaps?
The open border statement assumes that immigration rates will skyrocket and overwhelm both the infrastructure and social services. Given the problems cities are having just dealing with illegal immigration, it's not unreasonable to assume open borders would make matters worse (ex: there already isn't enough housing for people living in Canada).
A decreasing population size does not necessarily mean the collapse of social services; it could actually it could lead to big cost savings in various ways. And ewer people would require fewer services. As the population shrinks, the demand for resources like food, energy, and housing goes down, potentially lowering the overall costs associated with them. Tighter labor markets can lead to a number of different things, higher wages, re-politicization. The social programs might be very bloated, the NHS seems to increase spending while lowering capacity, where's the money going? That list could go on and on. The point is that its not a given. You have to look at the specifics of the case and the responses to it that occur once its happened
For government a solution, for the people a problem.
False... immigration hasn't solved any of the problems its been claimed it will do... it's actually just exacerbated them. People are not just widgets you can replace one with another.
Especially now with mass 3rd world low quality immigrants its a disaster.
Focus on automation, raising the fertility rate via lowering the cost of living and other policies. Not ponzi immigration which will turn the west into 3rd world dumps
The cultural changes are huge and leave Canadians with no option but to accept new social norms creeping into the fabric. Some of these new norms are which are unfavorable to women etc.). Attempts to approach this subject leads to cries of racism, leaving Canadians with little or no voice.
Yes the ability to discuss immigration honestly is hurt by accusations of racism. Wishing to preserve one's culture is hardly racist.