@@General.Knowledge 1st - build high end orphanages in small communities/villages 10-30km from small urban centers 2nd - pay young adults a one lump sum to have a baby (50% min wage during pregnancy for extra expenses + 12x min wage after birth) 3rd - kid is raised in high end orphanages, by the community and high skilled workers.
Accept more immigrants. Confiscate anything over $999,999,999 to finance their integration into US population & all the perks of social democracies. Keep tax rates confiscatory & discourage greed by humiliating the greedy publicly. Invest heavily in automation solutions for scut work. Tax the greedy every time they make any kind of purchases, including food and medicine, and revoke their passports to keep them here to suffer. ...I seem to have gone in a very Old-Testament direction...
We can't afford to make new people. It's too expensive to even keep ourselves sustained & our hustle culture/corporations are literally draining the little bit of hope/life we have left. The audacity to ask us to replenish their workforces.
the middle class had their future taken from the billionaires. the middle class have been priced out of family life, home/car/food/clothes, prices have skyrocketed.
For years, we all worked so hard we didn't have time to contemplate why things were getting more difficult every year. Now none of us notices anything as long as our electronic gadgets keep working.
The middle class has been forced to sacrifice one thing after another to maintain the economic stability enjoyed during the 1950s and 1960s (you know, that time when America was "great" and the top marginal income tax rate was over 60%). In the 80s, both parents worked. In the 90s, everything got put on credit cards. In the 00s, your home got refinanced. And now, people are realizing that they can't afford to have as many children (if any at all) and still provide for them like in the 1950s. Congratulations, billionaires. The future belongs to you ALONE.
problem we have is the growing elderly population and many of them live for too long draining the resources for the young. There's a solution for the pension crisis but It requires strongest will to implement it.
@@francisquebachmann7375 Only incomes below $160,000 are FICA taxed. That only represents 30% of the total income. The higher brackets have been given a free pass for decades. You pay 15.3%, the billionaires pay 0.000003%
@@francisquebachmann7375 That's mean ! However what I see are too many rich old elderly with more money than they deserve and a whole lot of people who should be living in caves. With no twixt . The word "twixt" is a preposition that means "between" or "twixt the two extremes". It is an old-fashioned, poetic contraction of the word "betwixt".
I'm personally fine with demographic decline. Too much bullcrap in the world, too many people who have to suffer. Less humans means less suffering. Demographic decline might have some benefits, less people means less workers and less soldiers, so countries might become more reluctant to go to war.
It isnt sustainable that the population keeps growing at some point it will no matter what stop or even decrease. I think we should rather adapt to a shrinking population than to prevent something that isnt preventable.
I agree, permanent exponential growth isn't possible or even desirable. I think population decline can lead to a readjustment which would then move into stabilization at a lower level.
Completely agree. Also, on the surface it seems like the US can handle a much larger population, since it is almost the same size as Europe, but at under half the population. However, other factors like simply available water limit most of the western US from growing and sustaining large populations; we may not even be able to support our current population without importing food and water
@@LeSethXChina sustains 1.4 billion people in an area similar in size to America that also has a huge portion of it uninhabitable. America is far from being overpopulated beyond what it can support. Other countries like China and India though are most definitely reaching the limits of current technology.
Also, I think Kazakhstan is an interesting case study considering it is an incredible exception to the rule as its birth rates *increased* over the years!
@@General.Knowledge From what I know, most African countries are facing a faster downward trend in birth rates than initially predicted. It's just that they are still well above replacement for now. But this isn't expected to last forever or for very long. Which just makes Central Asia that more exceptional.
@@General.Knowledge Central asias birth rates are increasing while Africas are decreasing. Its just that African countries birth rates are still above replacement
All developed countries, such as the USA 🇺🇸, Japan 🇯🇵 or Western European countries 🇪🇺, have a problem with the growth of the native population. Nationals of these countries no longer want to have children because of low salaries, high housing prices and, in general, the difficulties in forming a family. Therefore, population growth is caused by immigration from Africa, Latin America or Asia. Here in Spain 🇪🇸 we also have a serious problem with the native population, which is compensated by immigrants who arrive mainly from Morocco 🇲🇦, Colombia 🇨🇴, Venezuela 🇻🇪, Romania 🇷🇴, Bulgaria 🇧🇬, Senegal 🇸🇳, Cuba 🇨🇺, Ecuador 🇪🇨, the Dominican Republic 🇩🇴 or Peru 🇵🇪.
Just a quick reminder than while African and third world countries in general are still well above the replacement rate for now, their birth rates have also been decreasing significantly over the years and in fact even faster than initially predicted.
Has nothing to do with wealth in the Western world. Western world in the 60s and even hundred years before was wealthy but they had many kids because they created that wealth for their kids. Now they create wealth for themselves and this culture change has caused demographic collapse.
a huge reason is greedy people , the managers, which in turn means lower paid jobs that inspire people to have zero offspring which means being greedy has a massive cost: people don't have kids and there's decline
Yup. Then they flip out because a declining population means less competition for shitty jobs, so the next generation of workers can demand more pay and rights.
Once this starts there's no stopping it. It's the cost of taxes, housing, child care and education that's much to blame. But part of the cause is that our society is increasingly dysfunctional and hostile to people who want to raise children with traditional values.
Oh sweet sweetheart, you can raise your kids with whatever bigoted, or backwards thinking values you choose to instill in them. No one is stopping you. In turn, no one can stop others from calling you out for that. Furthermore, your kids will not be immune from mockery for having a backward, outdated worldview.
Far better to have a smart immigration policy that prioritizes smart people from India, SE Asia, and Africa. The current stock of “traditional” Americans is weak, stupid and lazy.
I don't think the big corporations care what values we raise our children with. They just want us to raise them using less money so they can have more. Everything is not all about values, unless you're talking about the value of a dollar.
Reducing the human population globally by 1 to 3 billion over the next century could probably be a good thing. This would cause societal changes around the world, but it would not cause the collapse of the human as a species.
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
2:45 migration from Africa was completely by force, the overwhelming amount of Caribbean movement to the US back then was also by force as well & those were just Africans being transplanted to the US south. Migration to the US from the Caribbean by free will didn't really start in significant numbers untill the early 20th century with numbers really taking off in the 1970s. People who are ethnically Afro Caribbean with no long standing connection to the US are not ethnically African American. Slaves were not immigrants
Not true. Look into it. Immigration from Africa was very common. Many would even trade themselves as indentured servants to pay for the journey over. But many wealthy Africans paid there way over too.
@@lukemurray4950 wasn't very common at all. Most that would go to the US went for study then headed back home & it was more so in the late 19th century
@@Lando-kx6so well it demand on what we define as common but it was significant numbers. Also no. Most of them set up plantations but this isn't talked about for obvious reasons.
It’s not quite that simple, “african american” isn’t actually that defined as an “ethnicity”, it just broadly means an American with African ancestry. The census for example actually says “Black/African American”, they’re just broad categories for people with honestly widely varying ancestry. So yeah Americans descended from black Caribbean immigrants would definitely be considered African American, kind of like how Obama is considered African American despite that his African ancestors had nothing to do with America (What you’re saying about slaves vs immigrants is right but it’s besides the point, when people say the US is a nation of immigrants they really mean most people have ancestry from outside the US- realistically a lot of those ancestors weren’t “immigrants” anyway, like idk if settler-colonists count as immigrants for example)
$600,000 houses and $15 an hour isn't working. Supply is horrible, so decline means affordability... UNLESS, the rich continue to buy everything up and leave it vacant. Millions of vacant homes rotting away in 2100. STUPID.
Migration is not the answer. We can’t keep bringing in more people and have limitless growth in a land with limited resources like water. We need to age gracefully and move away from this economic model that rely on endless consumption and building sustained by rapid population growth. It’s not about the quantity of people that you have in a society, it’s about the quality of those people and what they contribute as individuals. You can bring in a million more people every year but if the majority of those people are not economically and socially productive then it’ll be more of a hindrance to society and the economy rather than an asset. We need to invest in the people already here in this country. There are millions if not tens of millions of working age people in this country who are unemployed or underemployed, invest in those people first before bringing more in. This along with automation will help ease our economy and society into dealing with the aging population. This goes for all countries of the west. The current system of mass migration and the problems that it brings is clearly not working and people from around the world are waking up to that.
Agreed. But support in those countries is also needed. If their standard is uplifted they don't have the intensive to migrate. This would also mean they have to democratize and develop to higher standards.
Anti immigrant nonsense. Screw “economic growth”, unemployed people need help but so do migrants and they’re going to show up at our borders whether we let them or not.
Migrants are going to show up whether we “let” them or not. In fact I’m tired of this line of thinking. You can deport 10 million people, incarcerate 30 million, and close your borders, and they’ll still keep showing up until conditions are better in their home countries. It has nothing to do with who we’re “letting” in. Anti immigrant nonsense.
Agreed. Immigration itself is just a short term solution to a long term problem. Countries in the west need to realize they can’t resort to this forever
It is not and never was a problem. Our system based on eternal growth of everything is the problem. People do what they want. They certainly will not die out. At some point in the future it will grow again. Until then we need to adjust the system instead of pushing people to birth more.
@@jsward96 no, why would it? It’s not like this hits anyone by surprise. You can plan and calculate it beforehand for decades! I am middle age and I absolutely do not except help from the government for my retirement. We are told to take care of this on our own since years. Totally okay for me. Not okay is how they try to convince me to produce new tax payers. Also not okay how the rich of this society can opt out of paying into the public pots.
Both of these problems are easily solvable. For immigration: Reforming the immigration system to make legal immigration and naturalization easier would promote legal immigration and allow a large part of the US's already large migrant community to assimilate into the citizenry, and allow their kids to pursue higher education and therefore contribute more to the economy. For birthrates: Progressive policies like universal childcare would help MASSIVELY, as would strengthening unions, higher minimum wage laws, public healthcare, and shortening the workday. Any/All of these would allow working-class people (Who have more kids than middle and upper-middle class people) to enjoy better and healthier lives and have more free time, which will naturally lead to higher birthrates. Unfortunately, all of these ideas are thought of as "Far-Left" by half or more of the country. And the ultra-wealthy have an interest in keeping the status quo. So it won't happen.
Look into the childcare and social policies of the Nordic countries and then reevaluate this opinion. Essentially everything you suggest has been tried somewhere to very little effect. Like most, you find a villain within your own borders and stop looking any further.
I agree for the most part, but as is being seen in California, if you increase the minimum wage, the prices will also increase to keep profits. Or, instead of dealing with the loss of money by increasing prices, they would close job openings making employees have significantly more work to do where otherwise 2 or three people would be doing it. Otherwise, I agree with most of this
It’s a culture of masculine femanazis and woke politics as the main reason people aren’t having kids. Those ‘left’ politics have been done in Sweden and Scandinavia in general and haven’t worked but go ahead and push your ideology more so it will fail here too so you have someone to blame.
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
16% growth - "usa has a population problem". what????????? they will have 400m population with population growth. So usa does not have population problem. Bulgaria, Romania, South Korea, Japan, China etc have population problem
That's a good point! But 16% growth is the projection over the next 40 years with a medium immigration scenario. If you choose a low-immigration one, then there's even a population decline. Perhaps in the context of other countries it's not as serious, but still an issue to be resolved.
Seoul decided to expand is limited express network with an RER-style network hoping decreased commute to times from the suburbs would lead to more time at home to counteract their population woes. Reece Martin of RMTransit made a good video on how Atlanta could use the existing MARTA system in this way (be nice if the existing areas could be Quad Tracked, but if further points in the suburbs had that 10-20mins, people will be fine with it and the people downtown will get trains every few minutes, which gives them the freedom to not rely on a car all the time-even going car free and renting if going up to Chattanooga or Florida if there's only one train there offered by Amtrak and its has terrible hours between the two)
That's like saying compared to Gambia, Moldova isn't a poor country at all. Comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel to deny the existence of a problem is ridiculous.
@@General.Knowledge I've heard Japan is slowly adopting reforms to its work environment due to the lack of available manpower in the job market. Maybe this will help a bit or even reverse the trend in the long if it hoes far enough. But only time will tell.
This country needs increased child tax credits, nationwide maternity and paternity leave to help increase birth rate, increased legal migration. A slight decrease would be fine, but a drastic decline in population would be disastrous for future generations
Except when you look at countries that have those policies in place (Sweden, Norway, etc.), they have the same population decline happening as in the rest of the developed world
@@kijangberburu5991 If you look at the projections, Norway is predicted to have more births than deaths around 2045 Edit: I meant to write "more deaths than births" not what I actually typed
Exactly. Seems like we are only alive to feed some economy. And they wonder why people do not want their children in this materialistic, greedy corporate hell hole.
US economic growth is slowing. Housing is unaffordable for the masses in big cities. This will reduce population growth even for new migrants. New mass housing programs are needed across the US to fix this problem and homelessness.
Offering financial incentives for children doesn't seem to be working in Asia. I think I heard recently that South Korea will offer close to 100,000 U.S. dollars per child. Japan has an entire government department devoted to matchmaking. Poland goes one step further, and offers money every month per child to families with children. All of this has either slowed the decline, or had no effect at all. But fertility is a big question, just ask Finland. Finland has a government department whose entire job is to study fertility, find out why it's declining, and how to raise it. Every work day the people in that department think about and study fertility, making them experts. And what have they found out so far? They have found out that no one, not even them, knows why fertility is declining.
Is it a population crisis? Or, is it a rebalancing? Every video like this start talking about shrinking populations and it's always a catastrophe. There is always a myopic focus on running out of people to maintain current levels of production and the financial burden it will be on the younger generation. It's not endless. None of these videos go past the fact that the population will start decreasing and the cost to the economy. Fewer people also means less need. Current production levels won't need to be maintained. Yes, it will be a financial hardship on the workforce of the time, but for how long? Businesses that are inefficent and irrelevant will fail and their workforce will have to redistribute among the survivors. We don't need 32 NFL or NHL teams. We don't need Ford and Dodge and Chev and Toyota and Honda. We don't need Disney+ and Netflix and Prime and Hulu.
The problem is that as the population declines, the dependency ratio will increase. The shrinking workforce will not be compensated for by shrinking “need” as you say.
@@lenny5774just look at statistics for any country with a declining population and the ratio of young to old people, and you’ll get that conclusion. It’s really not hard to figure out
@@codysparks1454 being very honest right now, I don't understand why you are answering a question I asked someone else. But, yes, I see those statistics that are repeated over and over, by companies (media is still corporate) trying to save their bottom lines. I know there is going to be a long period of transition. I know our current leaders do not have a viable solution and I truly doubt most are actively looking for one. What I am getting at, is (personally) we have to stop listening to their "You are victims" propoganda and start looking to what each of us (individually) can do to brace ourselves for the trials of change and help reach a better outcome. I hope this clears up what I had first try to convey.
@@lenny5774 yes you asked someone else that question, but I decided to answer it since they didn’t (or at least not yet). Is there a problem with that? Am I not allowed to answer a question even if it’s not asked to me directly? Either way, I hope you don’t see an issue with that. And yes the answer you gave is more clear now
The reason why a lot of people aren’t making babies in todays world like before is because, raising a child in today’s economy is very hard for certain people especially the poor or the normal life people.
It’s crazy that people think population decline is a bad thing. Less people means less pollution, less resource extraction, less environmental destruction. It also means you don’t need to keep building more homes. But that’s what the pushback is about. People believe homes are investments rather than just a place to live. If population declines then home prices decline which means that “investment” is no longer an investment.
Population collapse is indeed something extremely bad for society. Nobody will be around to take care of the growing numbers of elders, nobody will work in Healthcare, Science, engineering, education etc and move humanity forward or help each other out. On top of that economies will collapse due to the exponential increase of pension and healthcare costs for old people that will start outnumber the working population. Which means taxing working and young people to death in order to keep the economy in check and it will just make everyone miserable, lonely and poor. Society will stagnate or collapse and enthusiasm for the future will slowly fade away. Malthus and overpopulation skeptics has been proven wrong in their thesis over and over again, it is in fact possible to reduce emissions and resource usage while having a growing population and economy. The answer to saving the planet is technological advancement, not depopulation and degrowth. The latter will actually make the odds of solving the climate crisis even worse.
@@Fluxwux that’s nonsense. You just move people into new positions. Decline is not collapse. You don’t need to tax people to death to pay for anything. A country that is currency sovereign cannot go bankrupt. It can create all the currency it needs. If you need more people in healthcare then train people for those jobs rather than relying on “the market” to magically make it happen. A growing population is never needed. Technology may make things more efficient but more people still means more resources are needed. Less people will always mean less resources.
@@uhohhotdog I want to be respectful here, but don’t you hear yourself and how insane it sounds when you essentially is saying “just print more money bro, nothing bad will happen” in regards to the exploding costs of pensions, public spending and healthcare costs while the tax revenue of working age people is collapsing - causing Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe levels of inflation and a ballooning public debt crisis that makes the economy of Greece look like Switzerland in comparison? How will we be getting the economy under control unless we tax the few working age people to death or force them to work around the clock, just like what we see in Japan/South Korea today - which in return will make even LESS people afford or want to have children and making the collapse happen even faster? Also, how on earth will we be able to get more people to work in healthcare and nursing homes for the massive elderly population when that elderly population in need of care is larger than the workforce? We can’t just clone people 😅 And we need people in lots of other sectors outside of healthcare at the same time to make society function and move forward. Or should we just halt progress in favor of using all our brain and muscle power towards caring for the ever increasing numbers of old folks? Several countries around the world are seeing reduced CO2 emissions and a growing population/economy (even when factoring in external emissions from imports), recycling of dug up resources is also a thing, more energy efficiency and less needed resources to make certain goods due to technological advances is also happening. 100% carbon neutral energy systems of renewables/Nuclear/Fusion, full electrification of transport systems, carbon capturing in forms of planting billions of trees or machines doing that, lab grown meat, strict emissions regulations and smarter ways of reducing resource dependence are all ways of saving the planet without letting population collapse happen - which as I said only will make everything worse and halt all scientific and technological progress.
@@Fluxwux you need to learn modern monetary theory. There’s nothing insane about it. It’s about resources. The question isn’t do you have the money the question is do you have the resources. For healthcare that’s mostly the people. Doctors, nurses, etc. if you’re short on them we simply educate people not in that field. Instead of having useless unproductive jobs like cashier or military, you train them for the medical field. And AGAIN we’re talking about pollination decline, not collapse. There is no collapse. You don’t need a doctor for every patient. That’s not how hospitals work. And not every elderly person is going to be stuck in a hospital. The reduction of CO2 around the world has relied on keeping poor countries poor. As poor countries develop they naturally use more resources that previously they were never using. Making technology more efficient will do nothing about countries that previously were too poor to ever even use those resources at all. If you reduce consumption by half per capita but the population triples you’re still using more.
@@uhohhotdog I don’t care about “theories” (MMT is a quite controversial and flawed theory without any real credibility in contemporary economics), I care about realities. In which our entire economic system and governance of public finances is reliant on working age populations taking in more money in taxes than the non working population is costing the state in form of public service and benefit usage. As well as the very real dangers of inflation and need of money to pay workers and balance the national budget. Because yes, workers in healthcare is a resource - but are they just going to work for free? And if the massive labor shortages in healthcare and loads of other sectors is bad today in 2024, just imagine the problems with a inverted population pyramid. If you don’t believe me, just look at the panic in Japan and South Korea today with skyrocketing public debt, insane work hours and massive labor shortages. This is their number 1 political issue right now and all the science and economic research is pointing at the same thing as I brought up, which is major problems - not fuzzy economic theories that deny that public debt is a problem as long as it is your own currency. Is that concern and almost unanimous expert conclusions not valid? Thankfully we also don’t just force people in certain fields and important jobs like police and military personnel to be “useless” and make them healthcare workers. Which even if that was the case would not be nearly enough anyway due to the sheer labor shortages in every single essential sector in such a scenario. And what do you mean that green technology will do nothing for poorer countries? Your Luddite attitude is just simply wrong because more efficient technology and major breakthroughs will make green energy and other ways of making resource management efficient VASTLY more affordable and available. Just look at the price of solar panels over the years and how insanely cheap it has become, especially in poor nations that now is ramping up green energy while also decreasing costs for energy. Technology and efficiency is reducing costs, not increasing them. The only thing is that poorer countries are usually a few years behind in the transition and need to wait in cheaper prices and competition from new inventions that suddenly make previous high-end green tech extremely affordable in poor countries due to the west moving on. The world is not overpopulated and population has very little to do with emissions - it’s all about how we manage things in order to reduce emissions. Population decline can cause a population collapse - just look at China that is set to lose 500 million people in the coming 100 years or so. Is that not a major collapse?
Thanks! There's some new changes coming up. Just now we changed our channel icon and banner, also trying different upload dates through the week. And in a few weeks there might even be some on-screen changes 👀
7:10 the birth rate didn’t drop in the early 1900s because of the Great Depression. They were already dropping BEFORE the Great Depression. They dropped during the Roaring 20s.
The government should reduce the cost of living by lowering all taxes and having no tax on gross income less than the median income. Also no taxes on utilities.
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
If you're Hispanic you likely come from early Portuguese or Spanish migration?? Actually it's likely because you used to live in a Spanish colony which was later annexed by the US in it's push westward. By the way I'm not Hispanic I just know a little bit more history on this subject. Of course one complicating factor is the fact that anyone who speaks Spanish and lives in the Americas is considered Hispanic when in fact many are partly or mostly Native American.
So if a Mayan that only speaks Mayan moves to the USA, what is there designation? Native Americans are only recognized tribes from the US. Seems like we should go with the region, like Central or South America, instead of language. Also odd for Brazilians since they aren't Hispanic.
@@tradeprosper5002 I agree with that too. It's very complicated especially since there are many in Central and South America who have different ideas about ethnicity than we do here in the US. Since I deal a lot with genetics, I think of someone as Native American, no matter where in the Americas they are from, if that is seen in their genetics. But that is not the standard view of most. In the context of my comment I just meant that California's Texans etc. were already living there in what became a Spanish colony and then later past of Mexico before later becoming post of the US. Those people didn't migrate there from the south. Of course it was plenty of migration later from the south but I thought that the video left at a very important aspect of American Hispanic origins.
Millions of people are waiting to immigrate legally,but processing time takes 14-17 years for some countries The waiting period for legal immigrants should be short,legal immigrants are also more educated and the Economy will benefit significantly ,family reunification will also help more productivity South of the border immigration,a lot of it being illegal adds uneducated masses who take way more than contribute to the US,don’t expect them to improve tax payer base and help SS But politicians will do what’s good for them rather than the country
Why is this a problem in an overpopulated world? Population growth is unsustainable. And talking about extinction is ridiculous at a time when the world population is at record heights.
No one wants the population to explode or keep growing forever. However it decreasing THIS scaringly fast is also a problem. The ideal would be for a stable population at just the replacement level.
1) The world is not overpopulated. That's outdated nonsense. Most of the world is empty. Fly in an airplane and look down. 2) Humans have not invented an economic system that works when populations are shrinking.
@@mekingtiger9095 Yes, but at a much lower level. If we believe the ecological footprint calculations, humankind consumes 60% more than what earth can sustainably regenerate. So a more or less healthy figure would be less than 5 billion people-probably much less than that because there are still a hell of a lot of people who don't have Western living (consumption) standards.
@Onlinerando The biggest problem today is climate change - and the CO2 generation is strongly correlated with the size of the population. Compared to this, something like age care or lower productivity/innovation due to an aging society is pretty much irrelevant. Conversely, a decreasing population would also solve some social problems - like age discrimination and unemployment. Obviously, the world as it is today doesn't encourage population growth anymore. I'm pretty much convinced that a new population equilibrium will be achieved once a smaller population size has been reached again.
Bruh richer countries and people produce more co2 Like top 10 rich people ,s lifestyle releases an equivalent of 2 million people,s CO2@@klausschroiff4405
This isn't a problem, this is a good thing. World doesn't need that much people, i lived in Istanbul (a 20 million city) and i saw what overpopulation does from the first hand.
You know, we can't grow at 50% every fifty years. Before we use up all of the available space, we'll use up all of the available resources and or succumb to environmental pollution. Whatever the consequences that may follow from slowing population growth, it has to happen.
When you have to have both parents working because one cant afford to stay home and take care of the household children become a luxury. Its nearly impossible
If ppl had more income and social security they would have more kids. Why have kids if you're already poor and cant afford rent with two jobs? Tax the rich, give to the poor and you will have babys galore. The last time the gov gave significantly to the ppl literally caused the generation we call the baby boom*
No it didn’t and Scandinavian countries have massive subsidies for people who have children and it doesn’t work there and it won’t work here. It isn’t about money, it’s a cultural problem. People don’t want to raise kids around homos.
I doubt this will be a problem in the long run. It’s not like people aren’t having children. They most certainly are, but are having them later on in life when they are done with their education, have more money saved up, and have an established career. I live in the Seattle area, where it is relatively expensive, but everyone I know who does have children have at least 2 or 3. And I can count with the palm of my hand how many people actually straight up don’t want children. As our economic conditions get better, which I believe they will, there will be another baby boom. It’s just going to take time.
@@cs0345 Most of my friends/people I talk to are liberals. Keep in mind I live in the Seattle area. I’m also 29 and a liberal and I’m hoping to have 3 or 4 children.
My fiance and I like the idea of having kids, but we are in the maybe stage right now, and have no idea if we'll actually go through with it, primarily because we cannot comprehend how we'd be able to handle it. She and I will both have to work in order to support ourselves, and we have a stiff requirement for if we have kids that is not up for negotiation. One of us MUST be a stay at home mom or dad while the other works. Both of us working means we cannot give our children the attention they need while still being able to have time for ourselves. Again, we simply cannot budge on this, so congress needs to pass a plan to grant assistance of some kind, or at least better pathways to achieving a single salary household. If my fiance and I can achieve having a single salary household thats a comfortable living that has our needs met comfortably, then we will absolutely seriously consider having kids. But our needs have to be met first.
Exactly. I would say that countries with declinig populations have brighter prospects in the long term, though th process of getting there is already becoming somewhat painful.
because as countries get older, old people vote for policies that benefit them exclusively and leave the young people zero prospects for a better life.
A problem with population decline caused by lower birthrate that wasn't mentioned is the fertility of an aging population. A lower population certainly could reduce the cost of living, increase housing availability, and more, but the people who benefit from this are more likely than not to be older and therefore less fertile. This would put most of the population increase on the fewer young people that could possibly not make up for it. The population would eventually begin to increase again but not after a significant crisis of the elderly not being able to finance their life without going back into the work force.
On the ethnic point, I think one thing that goes under appreciated is that after 4+ generations, a lot of people with Hispanic heritage will be mixed and more-or-less fully assimilated into mainstream American culture (e.g. not catholic, Spanish-speaking or with any relatives with memory of migration). The modern wave of migration from Latin America started in the 80s-90s, so we're already starting to see this play out. This is the exact same thing that happened with other waves of immigration from specific regions (Italy, Ireland, Germany...etc). If the past is any measure, this will to some degree be a two-way process, as 'Hispanic-ness' becomes part of 'American-ness', in the same way pizza and over-the-top St. Patrick's day celebrations are. For at least a sizable portion of people with Hispanic descent in 2070, they'll probably be happy just calling themselves white.
Rapid population growth is not sustainable and extreme population falls are not sustainable either. Let's hope we can find a way to meet a balance at or just slightly above the replacement rate. The economic model of our society would likely have to change with a more limited workforce but we would be able to support the people we have with an improved standard of living for everyone. Growth would mainly lie with automation {with population only slightly increasing over time} and lead to a more stable environment, economy, and society as a whole.
11:39 In Poland party Law and Justice created a program 500+ changed now to 800+, which gives 800 PLN for every born child, but it didn't solve the problem.
@@dafafaaf7679 This is because of refugees due to war in Ukraine not because of 800+. 500+ (the predecessor of 800+) was invented in 2016. From 2016 to 2021 population was declining. It began to rise after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Thank you! :) Change the channel header/banner, too! I thought it was about time since I hadn't done it since 2017 lol. There are also some other changes coming to the channel over the next few weeks!
I’m not sure what you mean regarding Black people being immigrants. If they arrived from Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean then yes they are immigrants like those from other parts of the world. But if are speaking about the Black Americans who have been in the U.S. for more than 13 generations well before the U.S. became a nation then I would not use the term “immigrant”. An immigrant is a person who has moved across borders voluntarily versus forced labor. Although you don’t go into it historically most if not all majority white Anglophone nations had strict quotas on anyone becoming citizens outside of Europe. It only changed because of the Civil Rights Act passing. Black people demanding their rights made it possible for other non-white people to immigrate to the United States.
After revisiting that atrocious Tarik Carroll's EveryMAN Project campaign ad and remembering what the country became after 2016 and 2017 (including TH-cam itself for that matter), I don't think I want the US to still continue to be a superpower, bro... In any case, Immigration alone won't do much and you already face many other problems besides just the manpower issue. You've just recently hit the mark where you pay more in interest on debt than you do eith your entire military spending. That's certainly a feat, albeit not a positive one.
"Unless you're native American".....even they were immigrants. They may have came thousands of years before the rest of us but they still came from somewhere else. They didn't just magically appear in the western hemisphere one day
🤔First of. The numbers are far worst than they say. The US went from having 7 kids per woman to 2 in 200 years from 1800 to 2000. With a fertility rate of 1 a group of 100 people will be reduced to 3 people in 100 years or 5 gens. And you only need to lose 50% of your population before your country collapse in on it's self. In other words the US is not going to exist as a country for much longer. Also 😏Native Americans are immigrants too... They migrated to America 12k years ago. All races and ethnic groups originated in the horn of Africa as separate tribes. The brave ones risked their lives to travel and explore the world in hope of a better future. The rest stayed there and never developed anything worth mentioning. No written language, no technology, no culture.
The UK population has doubled in the past 40 years, so has the global population. It sounds like the US has less of a population problem than most countries.
One thing I never see addressed is the 'supply-side' of migration. There are not actually an unlimited number of humans in the world, especially likely-and-desirable migrators. The global supply of people in their 20s is going to peak in the 2030s, and possibly already has outside of Africa. If the US is targeting people with moderate levels of education, that group may have already peaked. To use a specific example. In 2020, there were 16.59 million Latin Americans between 20-24. Current projection expect in 2050 there will be 12.14 million, and in 2075 10.49 million. And those projections tend to be fuzzy on migration trajectories - if a rising proportion of those 12.14 million in 2050 are migrating to the US (or elsewhere), then that 10.49 figure could be lower. Additionally, low-and-middle income countries in general have been growing faster than the US on per capita terms for a while. Some of those might wind up stuck in the middle-income trap, but in the meantime, the differential economic advantage in migration will wane somewhat. You're particularly seeing this with India. If China ever resorts to trying to entice inward migration, it's going to have a massive impact on migrant demand, simply because China is _so big_ it'd need a _lot_ of migration to make a dent.
Solution approach 1 has never fully worked out in any economy having tried this. Solution approach 2 needs heavy reforms - it is insane how US behaves in terms of immigration consdering where the US comes from! Illegal immigration seems to be easier to do than legal immigration but the illegal immigration causes more problems than contributing to a solution.
In the past immigrants to America came and worked hard and didn’t get any help from the government, just a promise of opportunity. Everyone coming now just wants a handout.
I keep leaving the answer to the demographic crisis (and also solution to fermi paradox): 1st - build high end orphanages in small communities/villages 10-30km from small urban centers 2nd - pay young adults a one lump sum to have a baby (50% min wage during pregnancy for extra expenses + 12x min wage after birth) 3rd - kid is raised in high end orphanages, by the community and high skilled workers. This creates many jobs across many sectors. Develops rural communities that are ideal for raising youths. And gives young adults an economic push to start their lives and maybe buy a home. They can even choose to have their kid back at any given time. No penalty. Just a background check. And i think most will after few years
I had to stop watching because I can't stand hearing people say "less people". That sounds incredibly stupid. If you can count a thing, it's *"fewer".* If it's something you cant count, like water in a glass, it's "less". Absorbing information from uneducated or inarticulate people is not a good idea.
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work. Compared to 1989, today's economy and industry is several times weaker
A fair society should both support families and attract quality immigrants. Usa has always been good at the latter, differently from South Europe for instance, which is just attracting unskilled, cheap labour, good for eliminating workers rights
As long as it's not from war, natural disaster or pandemic, population decline is not a problem; It's a natural consequence of resource depletion. It's inevitable and good for future generations. All civilization threatening environmental issues are directly caused by the world's current overpopulation. It would be grossly stupid to resist natural population decline and would just create the conditions for a greater future worldwide catastrophe that would be far more traumatic for mankind.
I think we need to lean in to immigration, yes. I think we also need to accept that many people don’t want kids. Something I never see mentioned in these places is that certain religious sects in America make a point of cranking out kids like it’s 100 years ago. The Amish, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, the whole “Quiverfull” movement… it’s likely such groups will come to represent a larger portion of the country as a whole. 🤔
The answer is actually probably not going to come from Government. Is having children expensive? Sure, but as a percentage of our income or compared to the real income from days gone by, it is actually cheaper. We are simply more materialistic now and focused too much on our selves. If we prioritized families, we would not have this issue. Instead we prioritized careers, and the consequence is greater loneliness and childlessness. Let's reset our priorities, let's try to remember what matter most in this world. Your grave stone won't say you were a good wigit maker, it should say father and husband or mother and wife.
I just immagined your scenario of the US military turning into a robot force steered by older folks - as this would take place in the future, the now young will be these old people. So playing ego-shooters IS a good way to spend your time, you train for your future career XD
This is one of the biggest lies ever and it has been debunked so many times by so many people. We are literally looking at population collapse because it's not just the West but Asia and even many Latin American countries.
1:15 - Hispanic is such a vague way to represent a demographic when you think about it in terms of the definition and when you study the history of Spanish speaking countries in the Americas. Hispanic should really be regarded as something closer to an ethnicity or something similar that I can't think of off the top of my head and not racial, but in the USA, traditionally we've defined it as the opposite of that. Even what I'm getting at is implied in that chart with Non-Hispanic white. Yes there are white hispanic it's a thing just like there's black hispanic and indigenous or people of that background, I believe mestizo is the traditional term used I don't know if it's considered discriminatory or not to me it just means people of mixed Indigenous and European descent. There's also asian hispanics. People from asian but were born and grew up in a Spanish speaking country in the Americas. Anyone ever thought about how the Philippines is not considered hispanic even though it was a Spanish colony at one point? This is all a lot to take in and I'm not an expert myself. People in the USA may wonder why some hispanic people who have a darker skin tone when they generally see or think of Hispanics in the news media. Well one is reason because, just like the US, those who had a darker skin tone statistically speaking were less likely to have economic opportunity and better job offers. This is in part due to the Spanish and Portuguese colonizing these areas and setting up hierarchies and nepotism. If you study these countries you'll notice that good portion of the people who are economically well off tend to have a lighter skin tone this includes Mexico, Venezuela, and others. I think it's also important to note the diseases that were brought to the new world killed off a ton of the Native American populations and I think we sometimes forget just how deadly it was. It makes the date rates for covid-19 look like nothing in comparison. I went to a Mexican American museum recently and they displays talking about the different demographics within Mexico itself. One display showed a lighter skinned family in a nice looking house and they looked like they were doing ok for themselves and the other two showed families with darker skin tones and the darker their skin tone the more they looked like they were in poverty and destitution. Now I'm not trying to argue that light skin people aren't poor or not well off either in the USA or elsewhere it was just a display showing an example from Mexico. The point I'm trying to make with all of this is it shows how complex the idea of what it means to be hispanic can truly be. Honestly I feel like if you look at the history of some of those countries and their founding you'll notice some similarities with that of the USA in my opinion. I wasn't really taught a lot of this school in my experience I had to go looking around online and recently by visiting that Mexican American museum in Chicago around Pilsen which is free to attend if that interests anyone. I found all this other cool knowledge about Mexico and Mexican Americans from it like how it was trendy in Mexico to use the same art styles being used in Europe in the late 1800s to depict Ancient Rome and Greece except instead of depicting Rome and Greece it was used to depict various of Mexican history in that style including depictions of the Aztecs in that art style like when they discovered the eagle grabbing the snake, illustrations of Christopher Columbus, illustrations of Hernando Cortez meeting Montezuma, or images of just Aztecs in that style. I have met various hispanic people's from different backgrounds like Spain, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Cuba Argentina, and others. I guess one reason I find it fascinating is people the term can be so simplified within the USA when there's a lot of details to it.
*What do you think the US (and other countries) should do to fight this population decline issue?*
@@General.Knowledge 1st - build high end orphanages in small communities/villages 10-30km from small urban centers
2nd - pay young adults a one lump sum to have a baby (50% min wage during pregnancy for extra expenses + 12x min wage after birth)
3rd - kid is raised in high end orphanages, by the community and high skilled workers.
Encourage people to reproduce more?
Why fight declining rates? Increasing automation will fill the worker gap, then this will decline with the lack of need amongst the bio population.
Accept more immigrants. Confiscate anything over $999,999,999 to finance their integration into US population & all the perks of social democracies.
Keep tax rates confiscatory & discourage greed by humiliating the greedy publicly. Invest heavily in automation solutions for scut work.
Tax the greedy every time they make any kind of purchases, including food and medicine, and revoke their passports to keep them here to suffer.
...I seem to have gone in a very Old-Testament direction...
Nothing
2:55 if you're Asian American, your ancestors likely came from Asia......can't argue with that I guess 🤷♂
No sh!t, I thought they came from Greenland
Yep, I'm pretty sure he got that one right.
We can't afford to make new people. It's too expensive to even keep ourselves sustained & our hustle culture/corporations are literally draining the little bit of hope/life we have left. The audacity to ask us to replenish their workforces.
It's easier to live today than it ever has been, smartphone enjoyer.
the middle class had their future taken from the billionaires. the middle class have been priced out of family life, home/car/food/clothes, prices have skyrocketed.
This my friend is part of what the initial stages of collapse, change and possible extinction looks like in my opinion.
For years, we all worked so hard we didn't have time to contemplate why things were getting more difficult every year. Now none of us notices anything as long as our electronic gadgets keep working.
The middle class has been forced to sacrifice one thing after another to maintain the economic stability enjoyed during the 1950s and 1960s (you know, that time when America was "great" and the top marginal income tax rate was over 60%). In the 80s, both parents worked. In the 90s, everything got put on credit cards. In the 00s, your home got refinanced. And now, people are realizing that they can't afford to have as many children (if any at all) and still provide for them like in the 1950s.
Congratulations, billionaires. The future belongs to you ALONE.
It's not a problem, it's a good thing. There are too many people on the planet today.
problem we have is the growing elderly population and many of them live for too long draining the resources for the young. There's a solution for the pension crisis but It requires strongest will to implement it.
@@francisquebachmann7375 Only incomes below $160,000 are FICA taxed. That only represents 30% of the total income. The higher brackets have been given a free pass for decades. You pay 15.3%, the billionaires pay 0.000003%
@@francisquebachmann7375 That's mean ! However what I see are too many rich old elderly with more money than they deserve and a whole lot of people who should be living in caves. With no twixt .
The word "twixt" is a preposition that means "between" or "twixt the two extremes". It is an old-fashioned, poetic contraction of the word "betwixt".
You are not among them probably. :)
I'm personally fine with demographic decline. Too much bullcrap in the world, too many people who have to suffer. Less humans means less suffering. Demographic decline might have some benefits, less people means less workers and less soldiers, so countries might become more reluctant to go to war.
It isnt sustainable that the population keeps growing at some point it will no matter what stop or even decrease. I think we should rather adapt to a shrinking population than to prevent something that isnt preventable.
I agree, permanent exponential growth isn't possible or even desirable. I think population decline can lead to a readjustment which would then move into stabilization at a lower level.
Completely agree. Also, on the surface it seems like the US can handle a much larger population, since it is almost the same size as Europe, but at under half the population. However, other factors like simply available water limit most of the western US from growing and sustaining large populations; we may not even be able to support our current population without importing food and water
@@LeSethX food's fine
@@LeSethXChina sustains 1.4 billion people in an area similar in size to America that also has a huge portion of it uninhabitable. America is far from being overpopulated beyond what it can support. Other countries like China and India though are most definitely reaching the limits of current technology.
@@skygge1006 America wouldn't be able to sustain it's lifestyle if it had the same population as europe, let alone china
Its very tough to have children when the majority are single.
Get married.
Also, I think Kazakhstan is an interesting case study considering it is an incredible exception to the rule as its birth rates *increased* over the years!
Interesting! There's definitely exceptions to the population decline trend; many African countries are booming, too.
@@General.Knowledge From what I know, most African countries are facing a faster downward trend in birth rates than initially predicted. It's just that they are still well above replacement for now. But this isn't expected to last forever or for very long. Which just makes Central Asia that more exceptional.
@@General.Knowledge Central asias birth rates are increasing while Africas are decreasing. Its just that African countries birth rates are still above replacement
@@Bayerbach9541 Don't you mean "decreasing" in your second stance?
Well somebody has to export all that potassium
All developed countries, such as the USA 🇺🇸, Japan 🇯🇵 or Western European countries 🇪🇺, have a problem with the growth of the native population. Nationals of these countries no longer want to have children because of low salaries, high housing prices and, in general, the difficulties in forming a family. Therefore, population growth is caused by immigration from Africa, Latin America or Asia. Here in Spain 🇪🇸 we also have a serious problem with the native population, which is compensated by immigrants who arrive mainly from Morocco 🇲🇦, Colombia 🇨🇴, Venezuela 🇻🇪, Romania 🇷🇴, Bulgaria 🇧🇬, Senegal 🇸🇳, Cuba 🇨🇺, Ecuador 🇪🇨, the Dominican Republic 🇩🇴 or Peru 🇵🇪.
Just a quick reminder than while African and third world countries in general are still well above the replacement rate for now, their birth rates have also been decreasing significantly over the years and in fact even faster than initially predicted.
Has nothing to do with wealth in the Western world. Western world in the 60s and even hundred years before was wealthy but they had many kids because they created that wealth for their kids. Now they create wealth for themselves and this culture change has caused demographic collapse.
@@mekingtiger9095 Most of Latin America is below replacement level at this point as well
True! It seems to be a worldwide issue in most cases
more or less "Developed" countries have exceeded their carrying capacity under their current economic and cultural systems
a huge reason is greedy people , the managers, which in turn means lower paid jobs that inspire people to have zero offspring which means being greedy has a massive cost: people don't have kids and there's decline
Yup. Then they flip out because a declining population means less competition for shitty jobs, so the next generation of workers can demand more pay and rights.
Once this starts there's no stopping it. It's the cost of taxes, housing, child care and education that's much to blame. But part of the cause is that our society is increasingly dysfunctional and hostile to people who want to raise children with traditional values.
Oh sweet sweetheart, you can raise your kids with whatever bigoted, or backwards thinking values you choose to instill in them. No one is stopping you. In turn, no one can stop others from calling you out for that. Furthermore, your kids will not be immune from mockery for having a backward, outdated worldview.
I know, right.
Far better to have a smart immigration policy that prioritizes smart people from India, SE Asia, and Africa. The current stock of “traditional” Americans is weak, stupid and lazy.
I don't think the big corporations care what values we raise our children with. They just want us to raise them using less money so they can have more. Everything is not all about values, unless you're talking about the value of a dollar.
And what, precisely, are those “traditional values”? Obedience, even to and past the death of one’s parents? That seems to have been the big one… 🤨
Reducing the human population globally by 1 to 3 billion over the next century could probably be a good thing. This would cause societal changes around the world, but it would not cause the collapse of the human as a species.
Sure. You got any solutions for social security?
@@joes973 Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
2:45 migration from Africa was completely by force, the overwhelming amount of Caribbean movement to the US back then was also by force as well & those were just Africans being transplanted to the US south. Migration to the US from the Caribbean by free will didn't really start in significant numbers untill the early 20th century with numbers really taking off in the 1970s. People who are ethnically Afro Caribbean with no long standing connection to the US are not ethnically African American. Slaves were not immigrants
Not true. Look into it. Immigration from Africa was very common. Many would even trade themselves as indentured servants to pay for the journey over. But many wealthy Africans paid there way over too.
@@lukemurray4950 wasn't very common at all. Most that would go to the US went for study then headed back home & it was more so in the late 19th century
@@Lando-kx6so well it demand on what we define as common but it was significant numbers. Also no. Most of them set up plantations but this isn't talked about for obvious reasons.
one could argue everyone coming here expecting something better is being tricked and indentured in some way.
It’s not quite that simple, “african american” isn’t actually that defined as an “ethnicity”, it just broadly means an American with African ancestry. The census for example actually says “Black/African American”, they’re just broad categories for people with honestly widely varying ancestry. So yeah Americans descended from black Caribbean immigrants would definitely be considered African American, kind of like how Obama is considered African American despite that his African ancestors had nothing to do with America
(What you’re saying about slaves vs immigrants is right but it’s besides the point, when people say the US is a nation of immigrants they really mean most people have ancestry from outside the US- realistically a lot of those ancestors weren’t “immigrants” anyway, like idk if settler-colonists count as immigrants for example)
$600,000 houses and $15 an hour isn't working. Supply is horrible, so decline means affordability... UNLESS, the rich continue to buy everything up and leave it vacant. Millions of vacant homes rotting away in 2100. STUPID.
Migration is not the answer. We can’t keep bringing in more people and have limitless growth in a land with limited resources like water. We need to age gracefully and move away from this economic model that rely on endless consumption and building sustained by rapid population growth. It’s not about the quantity of people that you have in a society, it’s about the quality of those people and what they contribute as individuals. You can bring in a million more people every year but if the majority of those people are not economically and socially productive then it’ll be more of a hindrance to society and the economy rather than an asset. We need to invest in the people already here in this country. There are millions if not tens of millions of working age people in this country who are unemployed or underemployed, invest in those people first before bringing more in. This along with automation will help ease our economy and society into dealing with the aging population. This goes for all countries of the west. The current system of mass migration and the problems that it brings is clearly not working and people from around the world are waking up to that.
Word.
Agreed. But support in those countries is also needed.
If their standard is uplifted they don't have the intensive to migrate.
This would also mean they have to democratize and develop to higher standards.
Anti immigrant nonsense. Screw “economic growth”, unemployed people need help but so do migrants and they’re going to show up at our borders whether we let them or not.
Migrants are going to show up whether we “let” them or not. In fact I’m tired of this line of thinking. You can deport 10 million people, incarcerate 30 million, and close your borders, and they’ll still keep showing up until conditions are better in their home countries. It has nothing to do with who we’re “letting” in. Anti immigrant nonsense.
Agreed. Immigration itself is just a short term solution to a long term problem. Countries in the west need to realize they can’t resort to this forever
It is not and never was a problem. Our system based on eternal growth of everything is the problem. People do what they want. They certainly will not die out. At some point in the future it will grow again. Until then we need to adjust the system instead of pushing people to birth more.
It’s not a problem to have a small working age population taking care of a large elderly population as well as their own children?
@@jsward96 no, why would it? It’s not like this hits anyone by surprise. You can plan and calculate it beforehand for decades! I am middle age and I absolutely do not except help from the government for my retirement. We are told to take care of this on our own since years. Totally okay for me. Not okay is how they try to convince me to produce new tax payers. Also not okay how the rich of this society can opt out of paying into the public pots.
Both of these problems are easily solvable.
For immigration: Reforming the immigration system to make legal immigration and naturalization easier would promote legal immigration and allow a large part of the US's already large migrant community to assimilate into the citizenry, and allow their kids to pursue higher education and therefore contribute more to the economy.
For birthrates: Progressive policies like universal childcare would help MASSIVELY, as would strengthening unions, higher minimum wage laws, public healthcare, and shortening the workday. Any/All of these would allow working-class people (Who have more kids than middle and upper-middle class people) to enjoy better and healthier lives and have more free time, which will naturally lead to higher birthrates.
Unfortunately, all of these ideas are thought of as "Far-Left" by half or more of the country. And the ultra-wealthy have an interest in keeping the status quo. So it won't happen.
Far left culture is literally suicidal and young women don't want kids
Look into the childcare and social policies of the Nordic countries and then reevaluate this opinion. Essentially everything you suggest has been tried somewhere to very little effect. Like most, you find a villain within your own borders and stop looking any further.
I agree for the most part, but as is being seen in California, if you increase the minimum wage, the prices will also increase to keep profits.
Or, instead of dealing with the loss of money by increasing prices, they would close job openings making employees have significantly more work to do where otherwise 2 or three people would be doing it.
Otherwise, I agree with most of this
You're in denial thinking that this is all about money when really people just don't want to have kids anymore
It’s a culture of masculine femanazis and woke politics as the main reason people aren’t having kids. Those ‘left’ politics have been done in Sweden and Scandinavia in general and haven’t worked but go ahead and push your ideology more so it will fail here too so you have someone to blame.
No we don't have a problem. It's great. Entirely too many people
Enjoy living in Detroit at a global scale.
@joes973 so you think any standard city in India or China is better huh. Enjoy living in that. See how dumb overblown hyperbole sounds
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
@@xtreme242 Cities in Asia will not be improved by having a reduced work force and an increased aged dependant population.
Reportedly, US has more than 340m people today...
I would rather grow old alone playing video games, than having children in this economy, in this job market.
I call it being responsible not selfish.
❤❤❤❤❤
Then your mom should never had you with that same logic
16% growth - "usa has a population problem". what????????? they will have 400m population with population growth. So usa does not have population problem. Bulgaria, Romania, South Korea, Japan, China etc have population problem
Immigration growth. Not birthrate.
That's a good point! But 16% growth is the projection over the next 40 years with a medium immigration scenario. If you choose a low-immigration one, then there's even a population decline. Perhaps in the context of other countries it's not as serious, but still an issue to be resolved.
@@General.KnowledgeGood. No more white babies
Isnt that the capitalist model?
You don't understand how social security is funded, do you?
Usa: problem
Europe (italy): ahh yah.. i know it
I'm italian and yeah, it's not good, but unfortunately it's not even the worst
Seoul decided to expand is limited express network with an RER-style network hoping decreased commute to times from the suburbs would lead to more time at home to counteract their population woes. Reece Martin of RMTransit made a good video on how Atlanta could use the existing MARTA system in this way (be nice if the existing areas could be Quad Tracked, but if further points in the suburbs had that 10-20mins, people will be fine with it and the people downtown will get trains every few minutes, which gives them the freedom to not rely on a car all the time-even going car free and renting if going up to Chattanooga or Florida if there's only one train there offered by Amtrak and its has terrible hours between the two)
Seoul is light years ahead of any american city.
Compared to Japan and South Korea, the USA is basically Uganda (in terms of population growth)
That's like saying compared to Gambia, Moldova isn't a poor country at all. Comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel to deny the existence of a problem is ridiculous.
And those countries will get to have their own homogeneity while we won’t.
Japan seems to be going in a very concerning direction regarding population.
@@General.Knowledge I've heard Japan is slowly adopting reforms to its work environment due to the lack of available manpower in the job market. Maybe this will help a bit or even reverse the trend in the long if it hoes far enough. But only time will tell.
@@lukemurray4950to be fair Gambia isn’t so bad, they’re poor but compared to Chad they’re alright
Wait I just did what you said not to do 😂
This country needs increased child tax credits, nationwide maternity and paternity leave to help increase birth rate, increased legal migration. A slight decrease would be fine, but a drastic decline in population would be disastrous for future generations
Except when you look at countries that have those policies in place (Sweden, Norway, etc.), they have the same population decline happening as in the rest of the developed world
@@MuiltiLightRider norway population would still grow very stable until 2100
@@kijangberburu5991 If you look at the projections, Norway is predicted to have more births than deaths around 2045
Edit: I meant to write "more deaths than births" not what I actually typed
@@MuiltiLightRider which justified my stand
@@kijangberburu5991 that's my bad, I typed that incorrectly. Norway is going to have more deaths than births around 2045
The overall human nature was and is a bad joke
Exactly. Seems like we are only alive to feed some economy. And they wonder why people do not want their children in this materialistic, greedy corporate hell hole.
US economic growth is slowing. Housing is unaffordable for the masses in big cities. This will reduce population growth even for new migrants. New mass housing programs are needed across the US to fix this problem and homelessness.
And now you've just hit a new milestone by having your annual interest on debt surpass the military spending just a couple days ago, lol.
Offering financial incentives for children doesn't seem to be working in Asia. I think I heard recently that South Korea will offer close to 100,000 U.S. dollars per child. Japan has an entire government department devoted to matchmaking. Poland goes one step further, and offers money every month per child to families with children. All of this has either slowed the decline, or had no effect at all. But fertility is a big question, just ask Finland. Finland has a government department whose entire job is to study fertility, find out why it's declining, and how to raise it. Every work day the people in that department think about and study fertility, making them experts. And what have they found out so far? They have found out that no one, not even them, knows why fertility is declining.
At least we have 1 culprit of why human fertility is declining, and that is the growing LGBTQ community.
Is it a population crisis? Or, is it a rebalancing?
Every video like this start talking about shrinking populations and it's always a catastrophe. There is always a myopic focus on running out of people to maintain current levels of production and the financial burden it will be on the younger generation.
It's not endless.
None of these videos go past the fact that the population will start decreasing and the cost to the economy.
Fewer people also means less need. Current production levels won't need to be maintained.
Yes, it will be a financial hardship on the workforce of the time, but for how long?
Businesses that are inefficent and irrelevant will fail and their workforce will have to redistribute among the survivors. We don't need 32 NFL or NHL teams. We don't need Ford and Dodge and Chev and Toyota and Honda. We don't need Disney+ and Netflix and Prime and Hulu.
The problem is that as the population declines, the dependency ratio will increase. The shrinking workforce will not be compensated for by shrinking “need” as you say.
@@jsward96 I don't get how you come to this conclusion
@@lenny5774just look at statistics for any country with a declining population and the ratio of young to old people, and you’ll get that conclusion. It’s really not hard to figure out
@@codysparks1454 being very honest right now, I don't understand why you are answering a question I asked someone else.
But, yes, I see those statistics that are repeated over and over, by companies (media is still corporate) trying to save their bottom lines. I know there is going to be a long period of transition. I know our current leaders do not have a viable solution and I truly doubt most are actively looking for one.
What I am getting at, is (personally) we have to stop listening to their "You are victims" propoganda and start looking to what each of us (individually) can do to brace ourselves for the trials of change and help reach a better outcome.
I hope this clears up what I had first try to convey.
@@lenny5774 yes you asked someone else that question, but I decided to answer it since they didn’t (or at least not yet). Is there a problem with that? Am I not allowed to answer a question even if it’s not asked to me directly? Either way, I hope you don’t see an issue with that.
And yes the answer you gave is more clear now
The reason why a lot of people aren’t making babies in todays world like before is because, raising a child in today’s economy is very hard for certain people especially the poor or the normal life people.
Reduce income inequality. The only way to improve brith rate is have a verry good wealth redistribution system.
Europe has by far the lowest inequality of any region. Yet they’re well known for their very low birth rates, in fact significantly lower than the US
It’s crazy that people think population decline is a bad thing. Less people means less pollution, less resource extraction, less environmental destruction.
It also means you don’t need to keep building more homes. But that’s what the pushback is about. People believe homes are investments rather than just a place to live. If population declines then home prices decline which means that “investment” is no longer an investment.
Population collapse is indeed something extremely bad for society. Nobody will be around to take care of the growing numbers of elders, nobody will work in Healthcare, Science, engineering, education etc and move humanity forward or help each other out. On top of that economies will collapse due to the exponential increase of pension and healthcare costs for old people that will start outnumber the working population. Which means taxing working and young people to death in order to keep the economy in check and it will just make everyone miserable, lonely and poor. Society will stagnate or collapse and enthusiasm for the future will slowly fade away.
Malthus and overpopulation skeptics has been proven wrong in their thesis over and over again, it is in fact possible to reduce emissions and resource usage while having a growing population and economy. The answer to saving the planet is technological advancement, not depopulation and degrowth. The latter will actually make the odds of solving the climate crisis even worse.
@@Fluxwux that’s nonsense. You just move people into new positions.
Decline is not collapse.
You don’t need to tax people to death to pay for anything. A country that is currency sovereign cannot go bankrupt. It can create all the currency it needs.
If you need more people in healthcare then train people for those jobs rather than relying on “the market” to magically make it happen.
A growing population is never needed.
Technology may make things more efficient but more people still means more resources are needed. Less people will always mean less resources.
@@uhohhotdog I want to be respectful here, but don’t you hear yourself and how insane it sounds when you essentially is saying “just print more money bro, nothing bad will happen” in regards to the exploding costs of pensions, public spending and healthcare costs while the tax revenue of working age people is collapsing - causing Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe levels of inflation and a ballooning public debt crisis that makes the economy of Greece look like Switzerland in comparison? How will we be getting the economy under control unless we tax the few working age people to death or force them to work around the clock, just like what we see in Japan/South Korea today - which in return will make even LESS people afford or want to have children and making the collapse happen even faster?
Also, how on earth will we be able to get more people to work in healthcare and nursing homes for the massive elderly population when that elderly population in need of care is larger than the workforce? We can’t just clone people 😅 And we need people in lots of other sectors outside of healthcare at the same time to make society function and move forward. Or should we just halt progress in favor of using all our brain and muscle power towards caring for the ever increasing numbers of old folks?
Several countries around the world are seeing reduced CO2 emissions and a growing population/economy (even when factoring in external emissions from imports), recycling of dug up resources is also a thing, more energy efficiency and less needed resources to make certain goods due to technological advances is also happening. 100% carbon neutral energy systems of renewables/Nuclear/Fusion, full electrification of transport systems, carbon capturing in forms of planting billions of trees or machines doing that, lab grown meat, strict emissions regulations and smarter ways of reducing resource dependence are all ways of saving the planet without letting population collapse happen - which as I said only will make everything worse and halt all scientific and technological progress.
@@Fluxwux you need to learn modern monetary theory. There’s nothing insane about it. It’s about resources. The question isn’t do you have the money the question is do you have the resources. For healthcare that’s mostly the people. Doctors, nurses, etc. if you’re short on them we simply educate people not in that field. Instead of having useless unproductive jobs like cashier or military, you train them for the medical field. And AGAIN we’re talking about pollination decline, not collapse. There is no collapse. You don’t need a doctor for every patient. That’s not how hospitals work. And not every elderly person is going to be stuck in a hospital.
The reduction of CO2 around the world has relied on keeping poor countries poor. As poor countries develop they naturally use more resources that previously they were never using. Making technology more efficient will do nothing about countries that previously were too poor to ever even use those resources at all.
If you reduce consumption by half per capita but the population triples you’re still using more.
@@uhohhotdog I don’t care about “theories” (MMT is a quite controversial and flawed theory without any real credibility in contemporary economics), I care about realities. In which our entire economic system and governance of public finances is reliant on working age populations taking in more money in taxes than the non working population is costing the state in form of public service and benefit usage. As well as the very real dangers of inflation and need of money to pay workers and balance the national budget. Because yes, workers in healthcare is a resource - but are they just going to work for free? And if the massive labor shortages in healthcare and loads of other sectors is bad today in 2024, just imagine the problems with a inverted population pyramid. If you don’t believe me, just look at the panic in Japan and South Korea today with skyrocketing public debt, insane work hours and massive labor shortages. This is their number 1 political issue right now and all the science and economic research is pointing at the same thing as I brought up, which is major problems - not fuzzy economic theories that deny that public debt is a problem as long as it is your own currency. Is that concern and almost unanimous expert conclusions not valid?
Thankfully we also don’t just force people in certain fields and important jobs like police and military personnel to be “useless” and make them healthcare workers. Which even if that was the case would not be nearly enough anyway due to the sheer labor shortages in every single essential sector in such a scenario.
And what do you mean that green technology will do nothing for poorer countries? Your Luddite attitude is just simply wrong because more efficient technology and major breakthroughs will make green energy and other ways of making resource management efficient VASTLY more affordable and available. Just look at the price of solar panels over the years and how insanely cheap it has become, especially in poor nations that now is ramping up green energy while also decreasing costs for energy. Technology and efficiency is reducing costs, not increasing them. The only thing is that poorer countries are usually a few years behind in the transition and need to wait in cheaper prices and competition from new inventions that suddenly make previous high-end green tech extremely affordable in poor countries due to the west moving on.
The world is not overpopulated and population has very little to do with emissions - it’s all about how we manage things in order to reduce emissions. Population decline can cause a population collapse - just look at China that is set to lose 500 million people in the coming 100 years or so. Is that not a major collapse?
I like the direction this channel is going
Keep up the good work
Thanks! There's some new changes coming up. Just now we changed our channel icon and banner, also trying different upload dates through the week. And in a few weeks there might even be some on-screen changes 👀
@@General.Knowledge I’ll be waiting
7:10 the birth rate didn’t drop in the early 1900s because of the Great Depression. They were already dropping BEFORE the Great Depression. They dropped during the Roaring 20s.
The government should reduce the cost of living by lowering all taxes and having no tax on gross income less than the median income. Also no taxes on utilities.
This is the opposite of a problem
Great. You can support all the retirees I was supposed to. Don't worry, you will only have to give away your first 60 hours of earnings each week
@@leppard57 exactly. These people have no idea what they're asking for or how the world works.
It will got a lot further a lot faster though. If current fertility rates stay the same South Korea for example will have 95% fewer babies than they did in 2000. That's getting pretty damn close to extinction.
If you're Hispanic you likely come from early Portuguese or Spanish migration?? Actually it's likely because you used to live in a Spanish colony which was later annexed by the US in it's push westward. By the way I'm not Hispanic I just know a little bit more history on this subject. Of course one complicating factor is the fact that anyone who speaks Spanish and lives in the Americas is considered Hispanic when in fact many are partly or mostly Native American.
Hispanic just means Spanish speaker. This denomination includes people who are mixed race and native americans who speak Spanish too.
@@ZaKRo-bx7lp Agreed
So if a Mayan that only speaks Mayan moves to the USA, what is there designation? Native Americans are only recognized tribes from the US. Seems like we should go with the region, like Central or South America, instead of language. Also odd for Brazilians since they aren't Hispanic.
@@tradeprosper5002 I agree with that too. It's very complicated especially since there are many in Central and South America who have different ideas about ethnicity than we do here in the US. Since I deal a lot with genetics, I think of someone as Native American, no matter where in the Americas they are from, if that is seen in their genetics. But that is not the standard view of most. In the context of my comment I just meant that California's Texans etc. were already living there in what became a Spanish colony and then later past of Mexico before later becoming post of the US. Those people didn't migrate there from the south. Of course it was plenty of migration later from the south but I thought that the video left at a very important aspect of American Hispanic origins.
Millions of people are waiting to immigrate legally,but processing time takes 14-17 years for some countries
The waiting period for legal immigrants should be short,legal immigrants are also more educated and the Economy will benefit significantly ,family reunification will also help more productivity
South of the border immigration,a lot of it being illegal adds uneducated masses who take way more than contribute to the US,don’t expect them to improve tax payer base and help SS
But politicians will do what’s good for them rather than the country
Why is this a problem in an overpopulated world? Population growth is unsustainable. And talking about extinction is ridiculous at a time when the world population is at record heights.
No one wants the population to explode or keep growing forever. However it decreasing THIS scaringly fast is also a problem. The ideal would be for a stable population at just the replacement level.
1) The world is not overpopulated. That's outdated nonsense. Most of the world is empty. Fly in an airplane and look down.
2) Humans have not invented an economic system that works when populations are shrinking.
@@mekingtiger9095 Yes, but at a much lower level. If we believe the ecological footprint calculations, humankind consumes 60% more than what earth can sustainably regenerate. So a more or less healthy figure would be less than 5 billion people-probably much less than that because there are still a hell of a lot of people who don't have Western living (consumption) standards.
@Onlinerando The biggest problem today is climate change - and the CO2 generation is strongly correlated with the size of the population. Compared to this, something like age care or lower productivity/innovation due to an aging society is pretty much irrelevant. Conversely, a decreasing population would also solve some social problems - like age discrimination and unemployment.
Obviously, the world as it is today doesn't encourage population growth anymore. I'm pretty much convinced that a new population equilibrium will be achieved once a smaller population size has been reached again.
Bruh richer countries and people produce more co2
Like top 10 rich people ,s lifestyle releases an equivalent of 2 million people,s CO2@@klausschroiff4405
This isn't a problem, this is a good thing. World doesn't need that much people, i lived in Istanbul (a 20 million city) and i saw what overpopulation does from the first hand.
You know, we can't grow at 50% every fifty years. Before we use up all of the available space, we'll use up all of the available resources and or succumb to environmental pollution. Whatever the consequences that may follow from slowing population growth, it has to happen.
We also need to stop immigration
The government asking why I’m not having kids is a lot like my boss asking me why I’m so poor.
Maybe because life sucks for the majority of people and it's immoral to bring children into a world of suffering? 😢
When you have to have both parents working because one cant afford to stay home and take care of the household children become a luxury. Its nearly impossible
So - you truly think - that governments are more important than the people they govern ??
If ppl had more income and social security they would have more kids. Why have kids if you're already poor and cant afford rent with two jobs? Tax the rich, give to the poor and you will have babys galore. The last time the gov gave significantly to the ppl literally caused the generation we call the baby boom*
No it didn’t and Scandinavian countries have massive subsidies for people who have children and it doesn’t work there and it won’t work here. It isn’t about money, it’s a cultural problem. People don’t want to raise kids around homos.
Dark moment when he stated that lack of young people to join military could lead to robot soldiers. Anyone else get Terminator vibes?
8:51 klaus schwab ahh sentence
you vill own nossing
@@darksouls_guy1656 and you vill be chappy
Have you tried tripling housing, healthcare and childcare costs? That should fix it
I doubt this will be a problem in the long run. It’s not like people aren’t having children. They most certainly are, but are having them later on in life when they are done with their education, have more money saved up, and have an established career. I live in the Seattle area, where it is relatively expensive, but everyone I know who does have children have at least 2 or 3. And I can count with the palm of my hand how many people actually straight up don’t want children. As our economic conditions get better, which I believe they will, there will be another baby boom. It’s just going to take time.
You're pretty old or in a conservative social circle because people keep telling me that they don't want kids
@@cs0345 Most of my friends/people I talk to are liberals. Keep in mind I live in the Seattle area. I’m also 29 and a liberal and I’m hoping to have 3 or 4 children.
@@smaoproductsYou know it is difficult and dangerous for women to have children in the late 30s and 40s?
@@thetapheonix It’s not the best choice but we have better technology and healthcare to help with fertility.
My fiance and I like the idea of having kids, but we are in the maybe stage right now, and have no idea if we'll actually go through with it, primarily because we cannot comprehend how we'd be able to handle it. She and I will both have to work in order to support ourselves, and we have a stiff requirement for if we have kids that is not up for negotiation. One of us MUST be a stay at home mom or dad while the other works. Both of us working means we cannot give our children the attention they need while still being able to have time for ourselves. Again, we simply cannot budge on this, so congress needs to pass a plan to grant assistance of some kind, or at least better pathways to achieving a single salary household. If my fiance and I can achieve having a single salary household thats a comfortable living that has our needs met comfortably, then we will absolutely seriously consider having kids. But our needs have to be met first.
If anyone has ever lived in a city that was built for more people who actually live there, they will know that it is lovely.
Why is a smaller population anywhere a problem? What a weird thing to worry about!
Exactly. I would say that countries with declinig populations have brighter prospects in the long term, though th process of getting there is already becoming somewhat painful.
because as countries get older, old people vote for policies that benefit them exclusively and leave the young people zero prospects for a better life.
Well there’s a 13 minute long video here explaining why a declining population is a problem
@@ZaKRo-bx7lpThat's science dault for improving medicine and allowing elderly to live for so long.
A problem with population decline caused by lower birthrate that wasn't mentioned is the fertility of an aging population. A lower population certainly could reduce the cost of living, increase housing availability, and more, but the people who benefit from this are more likely than not to be older and therefore less fertile. This would put most of the population increase on the fewer young people that could possibly not make up for it. The population would eventually begin to increase again but not after a significant crisis of the elderly not being able to finance their life without going back into the work force.
On the ethnic point, I think one thing that goes under appreciated is that after 4+ generations, a lot of people with Hispanic heritage will be mixed and more-or-less fully assimilated into mainstream American culture (e.g. not catholic, Spanish-speaking or with any relatives with memory of migration). The modern wave of migration from Latin America started in the 80s-90s, so we're already starting to see this play out. This is the exact same thing that happened with other waves of immigration from specific regions (Italy, Ireland, Germany...etc). If the past is any measure, this will to some degree be a two-way process, as 'Hispanic-ness' becomes part of 'American-ness', in the same way pizza and over-the-top St. Patrick's day celebrations are. For at least a sizable portion of people with Hispanic descent in 2070, they'll probably be happy just calling themselves white.
Rapid population growth is not sustainable and extreme population falls are not sustainable either. Let's hope we can find a way to meet a balance at or just slightly above the replacement rate. The economic model of our society would likely have to change with a more limited workforce but we would be able to support the people we have with an improved standard of living for everyone. Growth would mainly lie with automation {with population only slightly increasing over time} and lead to a more stable environment, economy, and society as a whole.
In the future quality of people will be more important than the quantity like in the history
No housing no family no kids.
Fewer people higher quality of life for those people, as mentioned in this video. I fear our populations will not decline fast enough.
The imagine quality is so low at 9:54 that for a second I thought "why is the Taiwanese flag flying there?"
We can't afford it. Simple as that.
11:39 In Poland party Law and Justice created a program 500+ changed now to 800+, which gives 800 PLN for every born child, but it didn't solve the problem.
You are blind ❤
@@dafafaaf7679 Why?
@@PoProstuBartek964 All by design 🌶
@@dafafaaf7679 This is because of refugees due to war in Ukraine not because of 800+. 500+ (the predecessor of 800+) was invented in 2016. From 2016 to 2021 population was declining. It began to rise after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Nice new colour on the profile picture.
Thank you! :) Change the channel header/banner, too! I thought it was about time since I hadn't done it since 2017 lol. There are also some other changes coming to the channel over the next few weeks!
@@General.Knowledge I'll watch for the new changes. Also, thank you for all the videos you make General Knowledge.
6:53 Why is there no data on Gen X Birth rates?
I’m not sure what you mean regarding Black people being immigrants. If they arrived from Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean then yes they are immigrants like those from other parts of the world. But if are speaking about the Black Americans who have been in the U.S. for more than 13 generations well before the U.S. became a nation then I would not use the term “immigrant”. An immigrant is a person who has moved across borders voluntarily versus forced labor.
Although you don’t go into it historically most if not all majority white Anglophone nations had strict quotas on anyone becoming citizens outside of Europe. It only changed because of the Civil Rights Act passing. Black people demanding their rights made it possible for other non-white people to immigrate to the United States.
I m so much interested in geography nd demographics , greetings from Sri Lanka
Thanks for watching!
The US should try and aim for the high immigration scenario. If we want to compete with China and remain a superpower then we simply need more people
After revisiting that atrocious Tarik Carroll's EveryMAN Project campaign ad and remembering what the country became after 2016 and 2017 (including TH-cam itself for that matter), I don't think I want the US to still continue to be a superpower, bro... In any case, Immigration alone won't do much and you already face many other problems besides just the manpower issue. You've just recently hit the mark where you pay more in interest on debt than you do eith your entire military spending. That's certainly a feat, albeit not a positive one.
It's definitely one solution, but I think the cost of living issue needs to be addressed too.
China will win over the collapsing u.s. and west either way
USA can’t compete if it’s a failing country like Mexico or Brazil 😂
China’s population problem is far worse than the US
The U.S. “have” a grammar problem too 🤦♀️
Money. Money is the reason fewer Americans are having kids. That’s the reason.
East Asia and Europe are having far worse problem
"Unless you're native American".....even they were immigrants. They may have came thousands of years before the rest of us but they still came from somewhere else. They didn't just magically appear in the western hemisphere one day
🤔First of. The numbers are far worst than they say. The US went from having 7 kids per woman to 2 in 200 years from 1800 to 2000. With a fertility rate of 1 a group of 100 people will be reduced to 3 people in 100 years or 5 gens. And you only need to lose 50% of your population before your country collapse in on it's self. In other words the US is not going to exist as a country for much longer.
Also 😏Native Americans are immigrants too... They migrated to America 12k years ago. All races and ethnic groups originated in the horn of Africa as separate tribes.
The brave ones risked their lives to travel and explore the world in hope of a better future.
The rest stayed there and never developed anything worth mentioning. No written language, no technology, no culture.
The UK population has doubled in the past 40 years, so has the global population. It sounds like the US has less of a population problem than most countries.
One thing I never see addressed is the 'supply-side' of migration. There are not actually an unlimited number of humans in the world, especially likely-and-desirable migrators. The global supply of people in their 20s is going to peak in the 2030s, and possibly already has outside of Africa. If the US is targeting people with moderate levels of education, that group may have already peaked.
To use a specific example. In 2020, there were 16.59 million Latin Americans between 20-24. Current projection expect in 2050 there will be 12.14 million, and in 2075 10.49 million. And those projections tend to be fuzzy on migration trajectories - if a rising proportion of those 12.14 million in 2050 are migrating to the US (or elsewhere), then that 10.49 figure could be lower.
Additionally, low-and-middle income countries in general have been growing faster than the US on per capita terms for a while. Some of those might wind up stuck in the middle-income trap, but in the meantime, the differential economic advantage in migration will wane somewhat. You're particularly seeing this with India.
If China ever resorts to trying to entice inward migration, it's going to have a massive impact on migrant demand, simply because China is _so big_ it'd need a _lot_ of migration to make a dent.
Solution approach 1 has never fully worked out in any economy having tried this. Solution approach 2 needs heavy reforms - it is insane how US behaves in terms of immigration consdering where the US comes from! Illegal immigration seems to be easier to do than legal immigration but the illegal immigration causes more problems than contributing to a solution.
In the past immigrants to America came and worked hard and didn’t get any help from the government, just a promise of opportunity. Everyone coming now just wants a handout.
The older population that learned from books needed more imagination, than the electronic populace.
im Inupiat, a native Alaskan tribe!!
That's so cool! What is your experience having that heritage?
@@General.Knowledge its nothing too crazy, i do live in Fairbanks yeah. It's nice having free NANA dividends tho fr
Honestly it makes sense of republicans policy on birth control, but not right.
I keep leaving the answer to the demographic crisis (and also solution to fermi paradox):
1st - build high end orphanages in small communities/villages 10-30km from small urban centers
2nd - pay young adults a one lump sum to have a baby (50% min wage during pregnancy for extra expenses + 12x min wage after birth)
3rd - kid is raised in high end orphanages, by the community and high skilled workers.
This creates many jobs across many sectors. Develops rural communities that are ideal for raising youths. And gives young adults an economic push to start their lives and maybe buy a home.
They can even choose to have their kid back at any given time. No penalty. Just a background check. And i think most will after few years
Very interesting video.
I had to stop watching because I can't stand hearing people say "less people". That sounds incredibly stupid. If you can count a thing, it's *"fewer".* If it's something you cant count, like water in a glass, it's "less".
Absorbing information from uneducated or inarticulate people is not a good idea.
11:30 The most stupid policy ever made by the government Is it considered that 2000 USD is enough to raise a child?
Why should the government (i.e. taxpayers) subsidize child rearing? That is socialism, not the capitalism on which the United States was built.
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work. Compared to 1989, today's economy and industry is several times weaker
A fair society should both support families and attract quality immigrants. Usa has always been good at the latter, differently from South Europe for instance, which is just attracting unskilled, cheap labour, good for eliminating workers rights
Tell that to the employers who hire "unskilled" labour.
Portugal will be sooner...
That's true!
the usa should open the borders back up like they were prior to the early 1900s when white europeans where coming over by the boat load
Yeah bro if I’m Asian American my ancestors most definitely came from Asia, thanks for clarifying
Seems to have a problem writing English also. The United States "has" a problem.
As long as it's not from war, natural disaster or pandemic, population decline is not a problem; It's a natural consequence of resource depletion. It's inevitable and good for future generations. All civilization threatening environmental issues are directly caused by the world's current overpopulation. It would be grossly stupid to resist natural population decline and would just create the conditions for a greater future worldwide catastrophe that would be far more traumatic for mankind.
I think we need to lean in to immigration, yes. I think we also need to accept that many people don’t want kids. Something I never see mentioned in these places is that certain religious sects in America make a point of cranking out kids like it’s 100 years ago. The Amish, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, the whole “Quiverfull” movement… it’s likely such groups will come to represent a larger portion of the country as a whole. 🤔
Pfp change?!?! 🔥🔥🔥
Yes!
Or theres gonna be a trend reversal. Because the upcoming generations Happen to be more family oriented and willing to have kids younger.
Let's go to Mars
The answer is actually probably not going to come from Government.
Is having children expensive? Sure, but as a percentage of our income or compared to the real income from days gone by, it is actually cheaper. We are simply more materialistic now and focused too much on our selves.
If we prioritized families, we would not have this issue. Instead we prioritized careers, and the consequence is greater loneliness and childlessness.
Let's reset our priorities, let's try to remember what matter most in this world. Your grave stone won't say you were a good wigit maker, it should say father and husband or mother and wife.
Well done for promoting alternative thoughts.
I just immagined your scenario of the US military turning into a robot force steered by older folks - as this would take place in the future, the now young will be these old people. So playing ego-shooters IS a good way to spend your time, you train for your future career XD
Slowing population growth is not a problem, it's a necessity. The world is already supporting too many people.
This is one of the biggest lies ever and it has been debunked so many times by so many people. We are literally looking at population collapse because it's not just the West but Asia and even many Latin American countries.
If it was just slowing down, I would be fine, but it's outright reversing and doing it *way* too fast.
My comment got deleted.
@@lukemurray4950 Blame Susan Wojcicki for that.
I'll forever miss pre 2017 TH-cam.
@lukemurray4950 was it racist and/or useless crap ??
Gold and silver are money. USD is currency. What if the USD is no longer the world reserve currency??
1:15 - Hispanic is such a vague way to represent a demographic when you think about it in terms of the definition and when you study the history of Spanish speaking countries in the Americas. Hispanic should really be regarded as something closer to an ethnicity or something similar that I can't think of off the top of my head and not racial, but in the USA, traditionally we've defined it as the opposite of that. Even what I'm getting at is implied in that chart with Non-Hispanic white. Yes there are white hispanic it's a thing just like there's black hispanic and indigenous or people of that background, I believe mestizo is the traditional term used I don't know if it's considered discriminatory or not to me it just means people of mixed Indigenous and European descent. There's also asian hispanics. People from asian but were born and grew up in a Spanish speaking country in the Americas. Anyone ever thought about how the Philippines is not considered hispanic even though it was a Spanish colony at one point? This is all a lot to take in and I'm not an expert myself. People in the USA may wonder why some hispanic people who have a darker skin tone when they generally see or think of Hispanics in the news media. Well one is reason because, just like the US, those who had a darker skin tone statistically speaking were less likely to have economic opportunity and better job offers. This is in part due to the Spanish and Portuguese colonizing these areas and setting up hierarchies and nepotism. If you study these countries you'll notice that good portion of the people who are economically well off tend to have a lighter skin tone this includes Mexico, Venezuela, and others. I think it's also important to note the diseases that were brought to the new world killed off a ton of the Native American populations and I think we sometimes forget just how deadly it was. It makes the date rates for covid-19 look like nothing in comparison. I went to a Mexican American museum recently and they displays talking about the different demographics within Mexico itself. One display showed a lighter skinned family in a nice looking house and they looked like they were doing ok for themselves and the other two showed families with darker skin tones and the darker their skin tone the more they looked like they were in poverty and destitution. Now I'm not trying to argue that light skin people aren't poor or not well off either in the USA or elsewhere it was just a display showing an example from Mexico. The point I'm trying to make with all of this is it shows how complex the idea of what it means to be hispanic can truly be. Honestly I feel like if you look at the history of some of those countries and their founding you'll notice some similarities with that of the USA in my opinion. I wasn't really taught a lot of this school in my experience I had to go looking around online and recently by visiting that Mexican American museum in Chicago around Pilsen which is free to attend if that interests anyone. I found all this other cool knowledge about Mexico and Mexican Americans from it like how it was trendy in Mexico to use the same art styles being used in Europe in the late 1800s to depict Ancient Rome and Greece except instead of depicting Rome and Greece it was used to depict various of Mexican history in that style including depictions of the Aztecs in that art style like when they discovered the eagle grabbing the snake, illustrations of Christopher Columbus, illustrations of Hernando Cortez meeting Montezuma, or images of just Aztecs in that style. I have met various hispanic people's from different backgrounds like Spain, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Cuba Argentina, and others. I guess one reason I find it fascinating is people the term can be so simplified within the USA when there's a lot of details to it.