https://news.yahoo.com/humanity-hits-ei ... 04270.html

A baby born somewhere on Tuesday will be the world's eight billionth person, according to a projection by the United Nations.

"The milestone is an occasion to celebrate diversity and advancements while considering humanity's shared responsibility for the planet," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement.

The UN attributes the growth to human development, with people living longer thanks to improvements in public health, nutrition, personal hygiene and medicine.

8 Billion people. That is a lot.
if you lived to 77(2.4 billion seconds) , and could shake hands with every person,
you would have to shake hands over 3 times a second to shake every persons hand in your whole life



Is 8 Billion sustainable? Is it possible that we finally outlast the earth's resources?

Many projection state that 10 Billion may be the maximum amount we ever have on the planet. Will we be able to balance growth and natural resources?

Do they get a certificate or something?

Joking aside, thats a lot of people, it literally took a century to go from 2 billion to 8.

Looking on worldometer - its now over 8 billion:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Earth's resource that can support humanity ultimately depends on energy that can be exploited by human to sustain ourselves, no matter in form of chemical energy stored in food or emergy being used to produce machines that help our life and energy to operate things that we depend upon. Food, water, ecosystems, are all things that depends on or be sacrificed for the harvesting of energy for human use.
So the question on sustainability of certain human population depends on how technologically advanced are we at to use take energy from our world into our civilization.

casinterest wrote:

Is 8 Billion sustainable? Is it possible that we finally outlast the earth's resources?

Well, this year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28, so the way we currently, collectively, do the things we do is not sustainable at all. If you asked me if the earth could sustain 8bn of us, sure way not, we just need to mend our ways to a more sustainable future.

Dutchy wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Is 8 Billion sustainable? Is it possible that we finally outlast the earth's resources?

Well, this year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28, so the way we currently, collectively, do the things we do is not sustainable at all. If you asked me if the earth could sustain 8bn of us, sure way not, we just need to mend our ways to a more sustainable future.

Looking as its data source, this is calculated based on "ecological footprint" of humans as listed on site like https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/cou ... pc&cn=5001 , and by checking data breakdown on the table in the link I posted, it seems like the main deficit is carbon emission. So the deficit in resource can be fixed if we can find a way to reduce our carbon footprint by half or more.

Another thing that can be observed is that, per capita consumption of ecological resource stopped growing since around the time of 1973 oil shock, yet the deficit keep growing because population keep increasing, and the grow in population is considered to be faster than the rate that bio capacity of earth grow.

A further observation is that countries like China and Chile have already reached similar level of "number of earth used" as some of the developed countries like Japan and Germany, possibly due to lower obio capacity per capita as caused by their larger population splitting between the land resource of their country?

A fourth observation is places like Taiwan and Kosovo aren't part of the earth.

casinterest wrote:

Is 8 Billion sustainable?

I think the question isn't the rote number of what is or is not sustainable. It's what the composition of those 8B is.

In this case, first world countries are falling and have fallen below replacement birth rates. THAT is a ticking time bomb. Conversely, the population explosion is in non first-world nations. There is a different economic profile, economic contribution, resource usage and allocation dynamic associated with that.

If we stopped the free movement of food (a bit like Russia is doing with Ukraine) 8 billion wouldn't work. A country like the UK that imports a lot of food could reverse to producing enough food. But countries in Africa half made of desert, savannah, with little water resources, no way to buy fertilizer, it's just not possible. Some African countries could make more food if they were better run, and might help feed their neighbours, but growing like it is right now, no. A few countries contribute to this growth, with like 7 children for each woman, something needs to be done about that.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Is 8 Billion sustainable?

I think the question isn't the rote number of what is or is not sustainable. It's what the composition of those 8B is.

In this case, first world countries are falling and have fallen below replacement birth rates. THAT is a ticking time bomb. Conversely, the population explosion is in non first-world nations. There is a different economic profile, economic contribution, resource usage and allocation dynamic associated with that.

Yes, but even in the article, the peak is supposed to be at or near 10 Billion.
We are very wasteful as Humans in the first world.
Think of the bio waste just from uneaten food/groceries Trash of consumer goods.
If we can get more effective at recycling/managment of resources, we may be able to easily accomadate 10 billion just on the resources we are currently using for 8 Billion People. .

And this imo is why carbon reduction is going to be so hard to accomplish. First world declining birth rates are probably the only thing that is helping. They are not negative in the US. From Google -
"Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths. The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year."

This number is probably low as today many more migrants are entering the country then when this snippet was printed.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And this imo is why carbon reduction is going to be so hard to accomplish. First world declining birth rates are probably the only thing that is helping. They are not negative in the US. From Google -
"Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths. The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year."

This number is probably low as today many more migrants are entering the country then when this snippet was printed.

Migrants? I assume you’re referring to the people coming across the southern border, and they’re called “illegal immigrants”. Big difference.

mesasurf wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And this imo is why carbon reduction is going to be so hard to accomplish. First world declining birth rates are probably the only thing that is helping. They are not negative in the US. From Google -
"Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths. The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year."

This number is probably low as today many more migrants are entering the country then when this snippet was printed.

Migrants? I assume you’re referring to the people coming across the southern border, and they’re called “illegal immigrants”. Big difference.

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Aaron747 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And this imo is why carbon reduction is going to be so hard to accomplish. First world declining birth rates are probably the only thing that is helping. They are not negative in the US. From Google -
"Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths. The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year."

This number is probably low as today many more migrants are entering the country then when this snippet was printed.

Migrants? I assume you’re referring to the people coming across the southern border, and they’re called “illegal immigrants”. Big difference.

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Migrants? I assume you’re referring to the people coming across the southern border, and they’re called “illegal immigrants”. Big difference.

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

And like I said, whether or not you want to stay hung up on definitions, what they are or aren’t changes nothing about what’s happening. And will only happen more as instability grows due to population growth.

Aaron747 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

And like I said, whether or not you want to stay hung up on definitions, what they are or aren’t changes nothing about what’s happening. And will only happen more as instability grows due to population growth.

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

And like I said, whether or not you want to stay hung up on definitions, what they are or aren’t changes nothing about what’s happening. And will only happen more as instability grows due to population growth.

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

FluidFlow wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And like I said, whether or not you want to stay hung up on definitions, what they are or aren’t changes nothing about what’s happening. And will only happen more as instability grows due to population growth.

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

What percentage of illegal immigrants are committing crimes? 100%.

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Migrants? I assume you’re referring to the people coming across the southern border, and they’re called “illegal immigrants”. Big difference.

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Genuine refugees can cross any border legally. So not all crossing the southern US border are illegal immigrants.

Aesma wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Legal designations are immaterial to the fact migration continues to increase throughout the world due to circumstances out of most peoples’ control - political strife, instability, and climate impact.

Like I said, they’re called ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not into political correctness culture. People are choosing to cross borders illegally…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Genuine refugees can cross any border legally. So not all crossing the southern US border are illegal immigrants.

I actually don't think he knows that most of the illegals are entering legally. In general entering a country is legal. Overstaying is what many people do. I can enter the US legally for 3 months. I can walk across the border, fly across the border, take a boat, drive across the border, whatever. I just have to tell the agent I am here for leisure. Then I have to leave again latest after 3 months. If I don't, chances are they never find me as long as I just work and be a good "citizen".

Firstly, migrants can be legal migrants or illegal migrants. They are both migrants.

On the issue of are they criminals, I think the question is are they criminals who entered or did they become criminals because they entered.

FluidFlow wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And like I said, whether or not you want to stay hung up on definitions, what they are or aren’t changes nothing about what’s happening. And will only happen more as instability grows due to population growth.

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

But no one knows what the proper amount of immigration is. I've seen some pundits say that the US could support a population of 600 million. Once we lose the ability to print money and run deficits. we would then be on the same footing as Mexico.

I personally don't buy it - the richest countries (and happiest) seem to be Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. They have economic growth and good income equality. Pour in 50 to 100 million immigrants and see what happens.

Immigration is only legal if it is done through a US point of entry (CBP). Crossing a river, hiding in the back of a truck, swimming across a river etc., is not a legal point of entry into the US. Lol

FluidFlow wrote:

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

Why do you think it's necessary to keep GDP "up and going"?
Most countries had significantly smaller population size a century or two ago.

mesasurf wrote:

Immigration is only legal if it is done through a US point of entry (CBP). Crossing a river, hiding in the back of a truck, swimming across a river etc., is not a legal point of entry into the US. Lol

- Yes a person can enter the US legally through airports have a passport stamped and such then still become a illegal residents, that's called overstaying the time they're allowed to stay in the US per their VISA.
- Still it make no different to the global and nature perspective. They could individually be subject to arrest and deportation, however they still pretty much inside the US border.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Like I said, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

But no one knows what the proper amount of immigration is. I've seen some pundits say that the US could support a population of 600 million. Once we lose the ability to print money and run deficits. we would then be on the same footing as Mexico.

I personally don't buy it - the richest countries (and happiest) seem to be Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. They have economic growth and good income equality. Pour in 50 to 100 million immigrants and see what happens.

The critical difference in population scenarios between Scandinavia and the US is physical space. We have tons, they don’t.

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

But no one knows what the proper amount of immigration is. I've seen some pundits say that the US could support a population of 600 million. Once we lose the ability to print money and run deficits. we would then be on the same footing as Mexico.

I personally don't buy it - the richest countries (and happiest) seem to be Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. They have economic growth and good income equality. Pour in 50 to 100 million immigrants and see what happens.

The critical difference in population scenarios between Scandinavia and the US is physical space. We have tons, they don’t.

I live in an area that has had very limited population growth - northeast Ohio. Even with that fact, more and more development is occurring in surrounding county's. Having grown up in the 60's, I find the sprawl and devouring of forests and farms for shopping centers and housing tracts appalling. I also find the abandonment of the inner city appalling. I can't imagine what the sprawl and abandonment is in cities I used to travel to (LA/DEN/SEA).

That tons of space will come at a price to the environment. Thats my concern really. That being said we really do need immigrants in ne Ohio - but we need to discuss how many and how we deal their impact on the environment.

I can't imagine how LA/Chicago/NYC can take many more without starting to look like Calcutta.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

But no one knows what the proper amount of immigration is. I've seen some pundits say that the US could support a population of 600 million. Once we lose the ability to print money and run deficits. we would then be on the same footing as Mexico.

I personally don't buy it - the richest countries (and happiest) seem to be Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. They have economic growth and good income equality. Pour in 50 to 100 million immigrants and see what happens.

The critical difference in population scenarios between Scandinavia and the US is physical space. We have tons, they don’t.

I live in an area that has had very limited population growth - northeast Ohio. Even with that fact, more and more development is occurring in surrounding county's. Having grown up in the 60's, I find the sprawl and devouring of forests and farms for shopping centers and housing tracts appalling. I also find the abandonment of the inner city appalling. I can't imagine what the sprawl and abandonment is in cities I used to travel to (LA/DEN/SEA).

That tons of space will come at a price to the environment. Thats my concern really. That being said we really do need immigrants in ne Ohio - but we need to discuss how many and how we deal their impact on the environment.

I can't imagine how LA/Chicago/NYC can take many more without starting to look like Calcutta.

The tech and ability to overcome those issues already exists, it’s just a matter of where investment is going. Agriculture need not eat up tons of land, it’s just the style America is used to. Singapore has invested heavily in indoor vertical agriculture and it works very well for them in terms of both yield and saved space.

LA/DEN/SEA have topographical constraints on their urban sprawl and have been pushed toward more infill development at higher density. This is not something that will come naturally to mostly flat places like OH or TX.

And nothing in a first world country should ‘end up like Calcutta’ (now called Kolkata) if safety and land use regulations are properly applied and enforced.

One reason for higher apparent inequality in the US vs Scandinavia is we obviously have a sliding scale of priority for enforcement of such laws depending on economic beneficiary/income level.

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

Why do you think it's necessary to keep GDP "up and going"?
Most countries had significantly smaller population size a century or two ago.

I would not want to live in the conditions a century or two ago to be honest. Btw birth rates were sky high back then, its just many kids died.

But anyway, if GDP does not stay up, John Doe (a US citizen) will lose his livelihood. A reduction in GDP first and foremost will hit the lower middle class (which are mostly US citizens) the hardest, because they actually lose the most. Poor people just stay poor, but the lower middle class moves from something to nothing.

So paradoxically the core voters of the right actually need immigration to keep some kind of wealth. Thats also why immigration is a hot talking topic, but nothing is ever done. Just check the heritage of the maid or gardener employed by go to politician. Chances are high they are of latin American heritage and there is even a good chance they are actually illegals or were at one point.

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Funny is, that these people are needed to keep the legal residents rich... any immigrant in a country with birth rate below 2.1 keeps the GDP up and going... immigration (legal or illegal) is the only way for the western world to keep the status quo. If there would be no immigration, companies will soon leave to countries with growth potential instead of decline. Economies always follow the patern of population. Population growth = economic growth, Population shrink = economic shrink.

Why do you think it's necessary to keep GDP "up and going"?
Most countries had significantly smaller population size a century or two ago.

I would not want to live in the conditions a century or two ago to be honest. Btw birth rates were sky high back then, its just many kids died.

But anyway, if GDP does not stay up, John Doe (a US citizen) will lose his livelihood. A reduction in GDP first and foremost will hit the lower middle class (which are mostly US citizens) the hardest, because they actually lose the most. Poor people just stay poor, but the lower middle class moves from something to nothing.

So paradoxically the core voters of the right actually need immigration to keep some kind of wealth. Thats also why immigration is a hot talking topic, but nothing is ever done. Just check the heritage of the maid or gardener employed by go to politician. Chances are high they are of latin American heritage and there is even a good chance they are actually illegals or were at one point.

Reduction in GDP does not mean reduction in GDP per capita.
Companies will need to shrink their operation to match a smaller economy but in the mean time the labor market would also have less people available thus cancelling out. Alternatively companies can also diversify their operation internationally.

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why do you think it's necessary to keep GDP "up and going"?
Most countries had significantly smaller population size a century or two ago.

I would not want to live in the conditions a century or two ago to be honest. Btw birth rates were sky high back then, its just many kids died.

But anyway, if GDP does not stay up, John Doe (a US citizen) will lose his livelihood. A reduction in GDP first and foremost will hit the lower middle class (which are mostly US citizens) the hardest, because they actually lose the most. Poor people just stay poor, but the lower middle class moves from something to nothing.

So paradoxically the core voters of the right actually need immigration to keep some kind of wealth. Thats also why immigration is a hot talking topic, but nothing is ever done. Just check the heritage of the maid or gardener employed by go to politician. Chances are high they are of latin American heritage and there is even a good chance they are actually illegals or were at one point.

Reduction in GDP does not mean reduction in GDP per capita.
Companies will need to shrink their operation to match a smaller economy but in the mean time the labor market would also have less people available thus cancelling out. Alternatively companies can also diversify their operation internationally.

It actually does mean reduction per capita, and this will happen relatively fast. Its not a simple thing to explain but in general one things reduce GDP naturally: Retirement leads to reduced output. So every worker that retires needs to be replaced. If birth rate is below 2.1, this is not possible. Now you have two options, replace the worker with a robot or get a worker from somewhere. Option 1 will reduce GDP because the robot will not spend the output so GDP will reduce due to lower spending.

Now I understand the concept of actually shrinking the GDP together with the population, the problem is, that there is a delay between retirement and death. This delay has to be bridged by productivity from someone else otherwise with every retirement the country gets a little bit poorer per capita and only when people start to die at the rate others retire it will balance itself. One simple solution would be to scrap retirement or reduce life expectancy.
Otherwise someone needs to fill that gap between retirement and death with productivity. It is very hard to sell as a politician, that yes we can reduce immigration (and it would be possible and very easy) by making many old people very poor.

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I would not want to live in the conditions a century or two ago to be honest. Btw birth rates were sky high back then, its just many kids died.

But anyway, if GDP does not stay up, John Doe (a US citizen) will lose his livelihood. A reduction in GDP first and foremost will hit the lower middle class (which are mostly US citizens) the hardest, because they actually lose the most. Poor people just stay poor, but the lower middle class moves from something to nothing.

So paradoxically the core voters of the right actually need immigration to keep some kind of wealth. Thats also why immigration is a hot talking topic, but nothing is ever done. Just check the heritage of the maid or gardener employed by go to politician. Chances are high they are of latin American heritage and there is even a good chance they are actually illegals or were at one point.

Reduction in GDP does not mean reduction in GDP per capita.
Companies will need to shrink their operation to match a smaller economy but in the mean time the labor market would also have less people available thus cancelling out. Alternatively companies can also diversify their operation internationally.

It actually does mean reduction per capita, and this will happen relatively fast. Its not a simple thing to explain but in general one things reduce GDP naturally: Retirement leads to reduced output. So every worker that retires needs to be replaced. If birth rate is below 2.1, this is not possible. Now you have two options, replace the worker with a robot or get a worker from somewhere. Option 1 will reduce GDP because the robot will not spend the output so GDP will reduce due to lower spending.

Now I understand the concept of actually shrinking the GDP together with the population, the problem is, that there is a delay between retirement and death. This delay has to be bridged by productivity from someone else otherwise with every retirement the country gets a little bit poorer per capita and only when people start to die at the rate others retire it will balance itself. One simple solution would be to scrap retirement or reduce life expectancy.
Otherwise someone needs to fill that gap between retirement and death with productivity. It is very hard to sell as a politician, that yes we can reduce immigration (and it would be possible and very easy) by making many old people very poor.

The delay between retirement and death mean people are spending their saving. So they will still retain the same purchasing power as long as their saving is sufficient, together with government account of relevant national governments or similar entities that pay for welfare that support such people.
Reduced productivity is not too much of a problen as the consumption power can be spent across national border.

Indeed, when you calculate the GDP per capita nunber itself, every single people leaving the work force would mean the number reduce, but does that actually matter to genarl population? It could be a concern if most elderlies are dependent on financial support from younger generation, but the US does not appears to be the case?

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Reduction in GDP does not mean reduction in GDP per capita.
Companies will need to shrink their operation to match a smaller economy but in the mean time the labor market would also have less people available thus cancelling out. Alternatively companies can also diversify their operation internationally.

It actually does mean reduction per capita, and this will happen relatively fast. Its not a simple thing to explain but in general one things reduce GDP naturally: Retirement leads to reduced output. So every worker that retires needs to be replaced. If birth rate is below 2.1, this is not possible. Now you have two options, replace the worker with a robot or get a worker from somewhere. Option 1 will reduce GDP because the robot will not spend the output so GDP will reduce due to lower spending.

Now I understand the concept of actually shrinking the GDP together with the population, the problem is, that there is a delay between retirement and death. This delay has to be bridged by productivity from someone else otherwise with every retirement the country gets a little bit poorer per capita and only when people start to die at the rate others retire it will balance itself. One simple solution would be to scrap retirement or reduce life expectancy.
Otherwise someone needs to fill that gap between retirement and death with productivity. It is very hard to sell as a politician, that yes we can reduce immigration (and it would be possible and very easy) by making many old people very poor.

The delay between retirement and death mean people are spending their saving. So they will still retain the same purchasing power as long as their saving is sufficient, together with government account of relevant national governments or similar entities that pay for welfare that support such people.
Reduced productivity is not too much of a problen as the consumption power can be spent across national border.

Indeed, when you calculate the GDP per capita nunber itself, every single people leaving the work force would mean the number reduce, but does that actually matter to genarl population? It could be a concern if most elderlies are dependent on financial support from younger generation, but the US does not appears to be the case?

In the US it is actually even more the case as most retirement funds and savings are bound to stock markets, especially the domestic one. So if companies shrink as people retire and governmental policies do not allow to replace the workforce with immigrants, the output of the companies declines, reducing the return on investment on the stock and therefore reducing the stock value as well as dividend pay outs, reducing the savings/retirement funds of the elderly. This directly hits their spending, which in return reduces demand and GDP.

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

It actually does mean reduction per capita, and this will happen relatively fast. Its not a simple thing to explain but in general one things reduce GDP naturally: Retirement leads to reduced output. So every worker that retires needs to be replaced. If birth rate is below 2.1, this is not possible. Now you have two options, replace the worker with a robot or get a worker from somewhere. Option 1 will reduce GDP because the robot will not spend the output so GDP will reduce due to lower spending.

Now I understand the concept of actually shrinking the GDP together with the population, the problem is, that there is a delay between retirement and death. This delay has to be bridged by productivity from someone else otherwise with every retirement the country gets a little bit poorer per capita and only when people start to die at the rate others retire it will balance itself. One simple solution would be to scrap retirement or reduce life expectancy.
Otherwise someone needs to fill that gap between retirement and death with productivity. It is very hard to sell as a politician, that yes we can reduce immigration (and it would be possible and very easy) by making many old people very poor.

The delay between retirement and death mean people are spending their saving. So they will still retain the same purchasing power as long as their saving is sufficient, together with government account of relevant national governments or similar entities that pay for welfare that support such people.
Reduced productivity is not too much of a problen as the consumption power can be spent across national border.

Indeed, when you calculate the GDP per capita nunber itself, every single people leaving the work force would mean the number reduce, but does that actually matter to genarl population? It could be a concern if most elderlies are dependent on financial support from younger generation, but the US does not appears to be the case?

In the US it is actually even more the case as most retirement funds and savings are bound to stock markets, especially the domestic one. So if companies shrink as people retire and governmental policies do not allow to replace the workforce with immigrants, the output of the companies declines, reducing the return on investment on the stock and therefore reducing the stock value as well as dividend pay outs, reducing the savings/retirement funds of the elderly. This directly hits their spending, which in return reduces demand and GDP.

My understanding is many of those funds and savings target international market, even if they invest in domestic market, most of the significantly tracked stocks on the US market are those that have global workforce and global market.
Also, as operation efficiency worsen, some companies will ultimately be eliminated from the market, leaving behind stronger ones, as have observed during the pandemic.

c933103 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The delay between retirement and death mean people are spending their saving. So they will still retain the same purchasing power as long as their saving is sufficient, together with government account of relevant national governments or similar entities that pay for welfare that support such people.
Reduced productivity is not too much of a problen as the consumption power can be spent across national border.

Indeed, when you calculate the GDP per capita nunber itself, every single people leaving the work force would mean the number reduce, but does that actually matter to genarl population? It could be a concern if most elderlies are dependent on financial support from younger generation, but the US does not appears to be the case?

In the US it is actually even more the case as most retirement funds and savings are bound to stock markets, especially the domestic one. So if companies shrink as people retire and governmental policies do not allow to replace the workforce with immigrants, the output of the companies declines, reducing the return on investment on the stock and therefore reducing the stock value as well as dividend pay outs, reducing the savings/retirement funds of the elderly. This directly hits their spending, which in return reduces demand and GDP.

My understanding is many of those funds and savings target international market, even if they invest in domestic market, most of the significantly tracked stocks on the US market are those that have global workforce and global market.
Also, as operation efficiency worsen, some companies will ultimately be eliminated from the market, leaving behind stronger ones, as have observed during the pandemic.

Thats all true, the problem is that the invested part in companies overseas, while in theory staying stable, does not benefit the US at all except for the pensioners. Whats even worse, if funds start to divest in the US and flee the country overseas, US companies will go bankrupt. It is also not beneficial for the US if a company reduces jobs in the US and builds them somewhere else, because this productivity does not count towards US-GDP. So GDP will be reduced and jobs go somewhere else. On a globalist and neo-liberalism scale this is a good thing though, as it eliminates the need for high payed (expensive jobs) in the US and creates jobs with in total higher productivity in India for example.
Now this will reduce immigration because it makes the US a country not worth moving to because there are no jobs and no wealth (distribution). So while stock holders (and in this case pensioners) have a good live, normal people lose their jobs, cant build a pension fund and become poor.

EDIT: Thats why it is important to have inward and domestic investment, to boost and stabilize the economy. Countries with low inward and domestic investment go bust:

Just to highlight the effect of stagnating population and GDP growth:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Japanese+GDP
https://www.google.com/search?q=Japanese+population

As you can see they are facing a massive problem: Worker-Shortage, the economy is in huge trouble. The Yen is tanking, industrial output is sinking, while government debt is exploding. Its a ticking time bomb.

Now translate this onto the US, the only way the US can service its debt is by improving economic output to get more tax income. Its all linked together and the US is in no position to limit immigration at the moment except people are ok with reducing the country to dirty poors 99% of the population and filthy rich 1% of the population.

Governments in North America and Western Europe need to have a hard discussion with their populations on how many immigrants a country can absorb. And then what it's going to cost and how are they going to pay for it.

What happens when a mass migration event like the war in the Ukraine happens in the Western Hemisphere. The United States has had three small one since the mid-70's - the fall of S. Vietnam, the Cuban Mariel boat lift, and Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. What happens if Mexico City has a huge earthquake? Or Cuba or Haiti implodes even worse than they are now. How much are you willing to pay in taxes or debt issuance for this? Because with the safety nets now in place such as medical care, education and in NYC housing, the piper has to be paid.

Ask the Democratic mayor of NYC who can't get the Federal government to pay for the migrants he's now putting in tents.

But getting back to the thread title - IMO 8 billion people are more than enough.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Governments in North America and Western Europe need to have a hard discussion with their populations on how many immigrants a country can absorb. And then what it's going to cost and how are they going to pay for it.

What happens when a mass migration event like the war in the Ukraine happens in the Western Hemisphere. The United States has had three small one since the mid-70's - the fall of S. Vietnam, the Cuban Mariel boat lift, and Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. What happens if Mexico City has a huge earthquake? Or Cuba or Haiti implodes even worse than they are now. How much are you willing to pay in taxes or debt issuance for this? Because with the safety nets now in place such as medical care, education and in NYC housing, the piper has to be paid.

Ask the Democratic mayor of NYC who can't get the Federal government to pay for the migrants he's now putting in tents.

But getting back to the thread title - IMO 8 billion people are more than enough.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2022/10/14/ukrainian-refugees-challenges-in-a-welcoming-europe/#:~:text=As%20of%20August%202022%2C%20a,workforce%2C%20mainly%20in%20service%20jobs.

Ukraine refugees seem to have a very positive impact on Europe. For example, Poland has an unemployment rate of 2.7%. So Ukrainians find jobs very easy and actually increase wealth and do only cost in the short term but will "repay" these costs via taxation on their income.

Well considering it was just mainly women, children and the elderly who left, how can any economic study be accurate? How many of these moms and grandpa's are working in Polish factories and offices?

The US has given at least a billion dollars (probably more by now) to help Poland and the other countries impacted by Ukrainian refugees. I'm sure so have other Allies. Perhaps Poland thinks they'll go home when the war is over. They sure wasn't happy to get refugees from other places that were going to stay.